Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Companies (Extra-territorial Controls)

Ms. Walley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about his policy towards the United States Government exerting extraterritorial controls over United Kingdom firms.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): We have asserted on many occasions our rejection of United States claims to extra-territorial jurisdiction which infringe on United Kingdom sovereignty.

Ms. Walley: I thank the Minister for his reply, but I should have liked a fuller explanation of the way in which he thinks that this policy will affect the £2 billion trade deficit in the information technology industry in the United Kingdom. Given the damaging effects that it is having on not only my constituents but on others thoughout the country, does he agree that the time is right to ensure that United States law does not apply here? Will he take steps to do something about it?

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Ms. Walley: Does the Minister agree with The Daily Telegraph that this amounts to "RAM-shackle protectionism"?

Mr. Clark: I do not think that it has any effect on the trade deficit, although I should be interested to hear any case that the hon. Lady could draw to my attention. The problem with the United States' extra-territorial claims is that they carry, latent within them, a threat to cut off supplies to United Kingdom manufacturers if they do not conform to certain requirements of the extra-territorial provisions. If anything, it could be argued loosely that it has a beneficial effect on our trade rather than otherwise.

Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that the right way forward in this complex matter is to strengthen COCOM? How does he propose to deal with the problem, particularly as post-1992 some members of the European Community will not be members of COCOM?

Mr. Clark: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If the opposite of strengthening is weakening, I would say that COCOM needs to be relaxed rather than strengthened. One of the problems with COCOM is that it is too comprehensive, pays little regard to obsolescence and the list of items included thereon is far too long.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is not the Government's attitude towards the American Government over this matter spineless? British companies and individuals faced with prosecution under American law, which does not apply in the United Kingdom, are put in a difficult position. One of my constituents cannot leave the country for fear of threat of prosecution from the American Government, but the British Government are not prepared to do anything to refute the allegation or to support him.

Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. There is no compulsion on British firms to accord with the provisions of the extra-territorial legislation in the United States. Any British company that wants to resist it will receive the fullest support of my Department.

Mr. Stott: Is the Minister aware that the equipment that is being caught by these regulations is not necessarily state of the art stuff? It is equipment that he and I use in our offices. He must be aware that a growing number of British companies must go through the rigmarale of filling in forms to satisfy the United States Department of Commerce, which is having an increasingly corrosive effect on relations between the United States and its allies. Is it not time that his Department did something more positive? I suggest that the Minister might consider using some of the provisions of the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 to signal to the United States that this country is not prepared to accept extra-territorial laws, which are affecting British companies and damaging British trade.

Mr. Clark: The British Government have made absolutely no concessions to the United States' extra-territorial provisions. If a British firm feels that its commercial interests are best served by acceding to the provisions, that is a matter for it. If it wishes to enlist our support in resisting them, we should be very glad to offer it. The United Kingdom does not accept the provisions and has always rejected them. The form filling to which the hon. Gentleman referred is in no sense a statutory obligation. It is purely a matter of convenience which some firms adopt to speed up their internal auditing processes.

Manufactured Goods

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the latest balance of trade in manufactured goods.

Mr. Alan Clark: In the first quarter of 1988 there was an estimated deficit on trade in manufacturers of £2·9 billion.

Mr. Canavan: When does the Minister expect the Government to get trade in manufactured goods back to the surplus that they inherited from the previous Labour Government?

Mr. Clark: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave him on 13 January. In case he has forgotten what it was, I recommended that he ask his constituents and, if he thought it advisable, that he reproach them—

Mr. Canavan: Answer the question.

Mr. Clark: —that he reproach them for their propensity to buy foreign imports—

Mr. Canavan: When do the Government hope to get back in surplus? Answer the question.

Mr. Clark: I shall answer the question at some length, because I attach importance to it.

Mr. Speaker: I do hope not.

Mr. Clark: I am divided between my wish to accede to your desire, Mr. Speaker, and the vociferous requests by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan).

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the balance could be in my favour today.

Mr. Clark: All sectors of finished manufactures are in equilibrium, except consumer goods.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend agree that two problems face manufacturing industries and the balance at present? First, it seems that the Government, for some unknown reason, wish to keep the pound higher than it conceivably should be, which is dangerous for manufacturing industry. Secondly, when there is a monopolies and mergers problem, which we all have in manufacturing industry, the Government must look to 1992 and not stop companies such as Cadbury and Rowntree, which may like to merge, when others are not stopped from approaching them. Do we not have to look at this as a matter of urgency, and not in some cosy, quiet way?

Mr. Clark: I have great respect for my hon. Friend's judgment, but I do not necessarily extend it to his judgment of so-called real exchange rate values. The three strongest manufacturing exporters in the world—Japan, Germany and Switzerland—have the three strongest currencies.

Mr. James Lamond: Why does the Minister not try to help resolve the dreadful balance of payments problem and save his own job at the same time by clamping down much more firmly on the unfair competition from Turkish yarn and textiles, which is beginning to threaten the fragile recovery of our textile industry and is already causing redundancies in textile firms in the north-west of England?

Mr. Clark: The industry, which is co-operating with my officials, is preparing an anti-dumping case. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that the figures for the first quarter of this year show that imports of Turkish acrylic yarn are down by 75 per cent.

Sir John Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that the other day one of the biggest hosiery manufacturers in Leicester equipped itself with Italian knitting machines? When purchases of that magnitude go abroad, does my hon. Friend look into the reason why, and if not, does he not think that in future large acquisitions of such foreign machinery should be monitored?

Mr. Clark: I do not find that objectionable. I regret that we do not make knitting machines in this country that are acceptable to the firm in my hon. Friend's constituency. As I told the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), we are in equilibrium on capital goods, exports and imports. If those machines are used to manufacture finished products that will be exported and sold, all the better, I say.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Roger Stott. Sorry, Mr. Austin Mitchell.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That shows the benefit of appearing on television so frequently.
Does the Minister realise that his complacent answer amounted to saying that we are in balance except for the deficit in manufactured trade? Does he not realise the horrendous effect of the 18 per cent. rise of the pound sterling in real terms since the end of 1986, which will be disastrous for manufacturing industry? To illustrate that, may I ask him whether, in his view, the deficit in manufactured trade—in the first quarter it was running at£11·5 billion per annum compared to a surplus in 1978 of £.5·5 billion, updated to 1987 values, which is a turnaround of £17 billion in manufactured trade—represents a loss of 750,000 jobs, 1 million jobs or 12·5 million jobs?

Mr. Clark: The figures that I gave the hon. Gentleman are up to date. They are for the first quarter of this year, when the exchange rate factor applied in the manufacturing sector. The only sector in which we are in deficit is consumer goods.

Northern Region (Ministerial Visits)

Mr. Devlin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his recent visits to the northern region.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I have made two recent visits to the northern region. On 13 April I attended the first Action for Cities roadshow in Newcastle. This was well attended by local business men, who demonstrated their commitment to the regeneration of the inner cities by making many specific offers of assistance. On 15 April I visited Teesside and saw some very encouraging signs that the regional economy is steadily improving and that regional pride and self-confidence are returning.

Mr. Devlin: As unemployment in the assisted and intermediate areas of the region and in my constituency has fallen by 3 percentage points in the past 12 to 18 months, will my right hon. and learned Friend make a further statement on the industry in the region and the way in which it is picking up and creating jobs?

Mr. Clarke: At my hon. Friend's invitation, on 15 April I visited two successful companies in Stockton, and I cut the first sod of a factory site for a third company. I saw why the regional economy is improving. My hon. Friend might have added that job vacancies in the region doubled during 1987. The best survey of his local economy came from the Teesside chamber of commerce. It surveyed its members and discovered that 68 per cent. had increased sales in the first quarter of 1988, 62 per cent. reported increases in home orders, 45 per cent. had increased their work force compared with three months ago, 92 per cent. expect their work force to increase or stay the same in the next 12 months, 87 per cent expect to improve turnover in the next three months, and 84 per cent. expect to increase productivity. The Teesside economy is getting off its sick bed and becoming a healthy economy again.

Mr. Radice: On his trip to the northern region, was the Minister made aware of the critical shortage of factory


space, especially of units over 10,000 sq ft? Will he tell the House what the Government are doing to rectify that critical shortage, which threatens to choke off the upswing in the northern economy about which he has been talking?

Mr. Clarke: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman finding a cause for gloom out of so much good news.

Mr. Radice: It is a serious problem.

Mr. Clarke: It is a serious problem, because there has been a rapid increase in the demand for new factory space by businesses that want to open in the North-east. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that demand is now outstripping supply. He knows the provisions that we made to English Estates and the assisted areas across the country. The time is now ripe for the private sector to provide factory buildings in the north-east as well. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, with demand and the state of the local economy being so high, it is obvious that private sector development of factories in that region is about to burgeon as well.

Mr. Fallon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the northern region depends heavily on foreign investment? It has more to lose than probably any other English region from political barriers being erected to commercially judged takeovers.

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. The north-east has been found to be an attractive place to invest by the Japanese and by the first Korean investors, as well as by many European and American investors. Those foreign investors are welcome to put their money into the development of industry within these shores.

Mr. Caborn: Can the Minister confirm that the integrated operations development programmes submitted to his Department have been passed to the Commission in Brussels? To date, the local authorities which have submitted those programmes have not received any word from his Department. Can he inform the House of the scale and timetable of article 15 of the structural fund? What is his Department's position? The structural programmes are for three to five years, but, we believe, the article 15 money is for only one year.

Mr. Clarke: I believe that most of the integrated submissions have been made, but I shall let the hon. Gentleman know exactly which have now been made. No doubt he is most interested in the submission affecting his area. I know that the Birmingham submission has been made, and I believe that most of the others have also been made. With regard to article 15, we have accepted the local authority claims, but we are not taking a view. It is a matter between the local authorities and the Commission. Again, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman giving him the precise position on that.

Research and Development

Mr. Darling: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received on the United Kingdom's spending on research and development.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John Butcher): Ministers of this Department receive representations

regularly on all aspects of Britain"s research and development activities, including spending, from a variety of interested individuals and organisations.

Mr. Darling: Why does this country spend the lowest proportion of GDP on research and development of all our major competitors? Will not our balance of payments continue to deteriorate unless something is done about that? What do the Government intend to do to ensure increased spending on research and development?

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman has raised two points. He referred to the performance and spending from the private sector and industry, and to the level of spending sponsored by public funds. I shall answer his questions very clearly. If we consider Government-funded research and development as a percentage of GDP in 1985, we find that the figure for the United Kingdom is 1·3 per cent. for France 1·5 per cent., for West Germany 1·1 per cent., for Japan at 0·5 per cent., and for the United States 1·3 per cent. We compare quite favourably with the middle ground of the leading industrial nations.
However, the hon. Gentleman has a point when he refers to the performance of our industry in matching its competitors in other parts of the world. We are significantly below the international average in that respect. Given that the private sector and industry are now making excellent profits, we should ensure that they are doing their job and increasing the proportion of spending on research and development.

Sir Ian Lloyd: My hon. Friend will be aware from the reports made by our science attaché in Washington that the United States has recently allocated $200 million to research into the human genome. What representations has my hon. Friend received from our scientific community on that subject? What importance do the Government attach to it, and how much are we proposing to spend on it?

Mr. Butcher: No representations on that subject have come to my office from our scientific community. I suspect that in the first instance those representations might go to another Department as the sponsoring Department. However, I shall examine the position to discover whether representations have been made to another Department and write to my hon. Friend.

Dr. Bray: Is the Minister not aware that a paper on the support for the international project to map the human genome has been submitted to and considered by the advisory council on science and technology? Is there no liaison between Government Departments on these matters? Is he aware that it is a very important programme which has technological applications, and applications in the treatment of disease and perhaps, most important of all, in basic research? Will he confirm that there is no danger of funds being diverted from the basic research budget to make up the deficiencies in support for industrial research from the Minister's Department?

Mr. Butcher: As I explained very clearly, there are different sponsoring Departments for different types of research. In the final analysis, bids from different Departments will, of course, eventually go through to the advisory council on science and technology, and if they are of major importance they may go to a sub-committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which


also considers those issues. Any major enabling technology or technique of that nature will receive the fullest consideration.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are making very slow progress today. I ask the House for brief questions and we will then receive shorter answers.

Business Support Services

Mr. Forth: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress he has made in examining the possibilities of using outside agencies to deliver some of the business support services currently provided by his Department.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: All the consultancy initiatives within the enterprise initiative are administered by outside agencies. Discussions are in hand with the chambers of commerce and other bodies about the delivery of some of the services to exporters. Good progress is being made.

Mr. Forth: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Are there other encouraging signs that the process can be taken further and faster on the basis that advice provided by the private sector can be provided more effectively and flexibly? Will he confirm that the Department of Trade and Industry would receive much better value for taxpayers' money by spending it in that way rather than keeping work in-house?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why the consultancy advice under the enterprise initiative will be given by private sector consultancies. I am glad to say that the number of applications for consultancies means that we are well on target for the 1,000 consultancies a month that we forecast in the White Paper in January. All that consultancy advice will be given by good quality specialists in their respective fields drawn from the private sector.

Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister accept the European Court of Auditors' criticism of the way in which his Department administers consultancy grants in the regions? Will he introduce competitive practices in consultancy and marketing grants to enable small firms to survive in the region against large national accountancy firms?

Mr. Clarke: The report from the European Court of Auditors, which I confess I have not yet studied, will refer to past consultancies which, no doubt, were made available under the business improvement scheme under the auspices of the European Community. No one has had any chance yet to audit the progress that we are making under the enterprise initiative scheme. We are seeking to ensure cost effectiveness, and I am sure that we are achieving that. The response from companies that are seeking consultancy shows that we are providing a service that is welcomed by industry.

Manufacturing Investment (West Midlands)

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the figures for manufacturing investment in the west midlands for the years 1983 and 1987.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins: Regional investment data for 1987 are not yet available. Net capital expenditure, at 1980 prices, by manufacturing industry in the west midlands in 1983 and 1986 was £489 million and £603 million respectively.

Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that those excellent figures show that the west midlands manufacturing industry has been enabled to increase its productivity by 7 per cent. last year, to increase market share and thereby to increase employment in the industry? Will he confirm that any further improvements in competitiveness depend crucially on further improvements in productivity, which depend on wage settlements reflecting increasing productivity, but not exceeding it?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend has made the case exactly.

Mr. Nellist: Is not the figure that really matters the assets per worker in factories in the west midlands, which is still at a historically low level in real terms, because companies in the west midlands prefer to take the wealth that workers create in short-term profits rather than invest for the future? Is that not the real reason why under this Government the west midlands and the rest of the country are becoming the warehouse of the world, instead of what used to be known as the workshop of the world?

Mr. Atkins: The west midlands is an extremely important part of Britain. Many of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the area will vouchsafe what we know to be true, which is that many of the workers in the west midlands are doing extremely well and tend to vote Conservative in greater numbers as a result of their prosperity.

Mr. Gould: Does the Minister recall that in a debate last week of great importance to investment in the west midlands I questioned the assertion of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that Rover had recorded record exports last year? Will the Minister ask his right hon. and learned Friend whether he has now confirmed, as my researchers have, that Rover's exports last year of 165,000 cars fell well short of the 200,000 that it exported in 1979? Will he now admit the error to the House and set the record straight?

Mr. Atkins: They were record exports in value, not volume.

CBI

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the director general of the Confederation of British Industry; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My last meeting with the director general of the CBI was on 25 January. Our discussions on that occasion were mainly concerned with inner-city issues.

Mr. Oppenheim: Did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity to discuss with members of the CBI the latest issue of Fortune magazine? If so, did they notice the article entitled, "Britain is Back" about the British economic miracle? While there is no place for complacency, and though it may be that Fortune slightly overstated the case,


is not that article further proof that the Government's industrial policies are working, and should not the Opposition accept that fact?

Mr. Clarke: I do not recall any opportunity to discuss the Fortune article, but passing reference may have been made to the praise that we received from the retiring Japanese ambassador about the British economic miracle. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must sustain our achievement, and the CBI takes an optimistic view of the future prospects of British industry in its latest survey. We must continue all the good work, which is now earning such praise from all around the world.

Mr. Salmond: Did the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster take the opportunity to explain to the director general of the CBI the developing mystery of United Kingdom competition policy, whereby takeover bids for companies with golden shares are not referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission but the minority holdings of companies without golden shares are referred to the MMC? Is it not the case that competition policy is such that only companies with headquarters in London are afforded any protection?

Mr. Clarke: If there is a certain amount of mystery about our competition policy, it is because not enough Members have read the document that we recently published on mergers policy. It clearly states the criteria that we think ought to be applied. We believe that one should look mainly at the effects of competition on the British economy in protecting the interests of the British consumer. There are also powers taking account of the wider public interest. All those matters are considered consistently and sensibly by the Government on the advice of the director general as well.

Mr. John Marshall: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the director general of the CBI, will he discuss the view, with which many of us are in sympathy, that if the United Kingdom is the only EEC country to allow hostile bids from outside its shores, there is a risk that we shall become a branch factory economy? Will my right hon. and learned Friend also discuss the view that there should be reciprocity in takeover bids between this country and Switzerland?

Mr. Clarke: I am sure that we are not the only European country allowing bids from outside its shores. Within the European Community we are aiming for free movement of capital, from which I am sure the Community will benefit. As I explained in the exchanges on this subject yesterday, if there is no reciprocity between countries, that factor can he taken into account when considering whether to refer a bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We are awaiting the director general's advice on the particular case which I know concerns my hon. Friend.

Mr. Blair: As the Minister referred to the White Paper on mergers policy, I may tell him that it stated:
As for the suggestion that the competition authorities are too parochial in their approach and should take a wider European or indeed global view of markets, the Government believe the criticism to be based on a misunderstanding.
Is that still the Government's view? If not, and if competition policy is changing, will the Minister ensure that any changes are first notified to the House and do not escape in dribs and drabs of ministerial speeches?

Mr. Clarke: The quotation that the hon. Gentleman gave is entirely accurate, but it deals with a separate point. There are many areas of manufacturing and service industry where, if one looks at the market, it is found to be an international market. In 1992 we shall be looking to a single market within the European Community, so one must consider the impact of competition within that new market. It would be a mistake to confine one's view to the United Kingdom market, which would lead one into examining too much of a microcosm of the whole picture.
Yesterday, the Opposition—or at least the hon. Gentleman—seemed to be taking an extremely parochial view. As I see it, their policy is that no foreigner should be encouraged to invest in this country and that no English man should be encouraged to invest abroad. That is completely out of date and untenable in modern economic conditions.

Sugar Confectionery

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what tariff is imposed by Japan on United Kingdom sugar confectionery; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alan Clark: The Japanese tariff on United Kingdom sugar confectionery is 35 per cent. We shall be pressing in the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations for it to be reduced. Meanwhile, we are taking appropriate opportunities to tell the Japanese Government that we regard the level of the duty as excessive.

Mr. Gregory: We hear increasingly from the Government Front Bench about the round of discussions, but when will my hon. Friend stop drinking sake with the Japanese ambassador and get to grips with the problem, so that we may enjoy free and fair trade? There should be an opportunity for United Kingdom sugar confectionery and other manufactured goods—particularly, Scotch whisky—to enter the Japanese market.

Mr. Clark: The level of tariffs raised by the Japanese is on average lower than that raised by the European Community. If I may mention chocolate without having to answer a question about Rowntree, I point out to my hon. Friend that the tariff on chocolate has been reduced from 20 to 10 per cent. Our exports of confectionery to Japan amount to more than £4 million per annum, whereas its exports of confectionery to Britain total only £52,000.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that we may not be in a position to export any chocolate to Japan shortly unless action is quickly taken on the matters referred to yesterday? We were discussing the possibility of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of the Nestle bid for Rowntree, and 42 per cent. of the company's shares were in foreign ownership by the end of the day. Is he also aware that Mr. Kenneth Dixon—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Gentleman on this subject yesterday. This question is about Japan.

Mr. Clark: I do not see how any of the factors that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will inhibit our exports of chocolate to Japan, which last year amounted to £1·2 million.

National Transputer Support Centre

Mr. Knight: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assistance he is giving to the national transputer support centre.

Mr. Butcher: The Sheffield transputer centre is one of six transputer centres supported by the joint Department of Trade and Industry/Science and Engineering Research Council initiative to encourage the wider use of transputers. It is run jointly by the University of Sheffield and the Sheffield City polytechnic. My Department has contributed £635,000 to the transputer initiative.

Mr. Knight: Does my hon. Friend accept that, because there is a clear benefit to industry, it should be prepared to support these activities and develop the transputer for the market? Does he agree that this is the direction in which we should be moving—a greater role for private sector support?

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend will have noticed that in my Department's White Paper and subsequent announcements in the enterprise initiative this is precisely the way in which we want expenditure to move. The closer one gets to the markets, the less need there is for public sector funding, and the converse also applies. We believe that at long last the age of the transputer has arrived. It is showing signs of being a great success and I believe that its incorporation in super-minis, in particular, will bring great benefits in market terms.

Leasing

Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the value of the leasing industry in (a) 1987 and (b) 1986.

Mr. Atkins: The latest estimate of finance provided by the leasing industry in 1987 is £.3·4 billion at 1980 prices. The corresponding amount in 1986 was £3·1 billion at 1980 prices.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my hon. Friend agree that that reply shows the contribution made to the United Kingdom economy by the service sector? Would it be true to say that the service sector in this country—

Mr. Tony Banks: Stop reading, Fergus.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is perfectly OK. The hon. Member is glancing at his notes.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my hon. Friend agree that the service sector contributes twice as much to the economy in output and three times as much in employment as the manufacturing sector?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend has stolen my thunder. He is quite right.

Internal Market

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further plans his Department has to publicise the implications of the internal market to industry.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Government are already taking a number of measures to alert business to the single European market and the vital importance of preparing

for it now. These include regional conferences, detailed literature, national advertising and a telephone hotline. The single market campaign will run until 1992, but we shall continually assess its exact form in the light of current needs.

Mr. Wallace: Is the Chancellor aware of the recent CBI survey in Scotland, which showed that 34 per cent. of companies did not even know about the introduction of the single market in 1992? What further steps does he propose to take in Scotland, bearing in mind the difficulties that the peripheral areas face in trading because of transport costs? Will he ensure that his Department puts a forceful case to the European Commission for continuing to make available European regional development fund moneys for the Highlands and Islands?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's first point helps make the case for this campaign. When we started in England we found a low level of awareness and understanding among British industry. Already, after the first few weeks of the campaign, there has been a substantial increase in awareness, with more businesses preparing themselves for what they have to do for the changes of 1992. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will mount a similar campaign there.
As for the hon. Gentleman's last point, I assure him that we shall be pressing that case on the European Commission and in our discussions in the Council of Ministers with other member countries.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that for Britain to get the maximum benefit from the internal market we need dynamic British companies? Will he ensure that countries that prevent British companies from making takeover bids are not allowed to launch predatory attacks from a safe base? We have accepted the principle of reciprocity in financial services. Should we not do the same for manufacturing industry? Would it not be a good start to refer the Rowntree bid?

Mr. Clarke: The single market will be of considerable benefit to all the economies of the EC. We are creating a large market of 320 million people, which will attract a lot of inward investment. One of Britain's main aims must be to attract a disproportionate share of that inward investment compared with other countries. That still leaves us looking at individual bids, as I said yesterday on the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory). Whether a similar bid could be made in the country from which the investment comes is a relevant factor, but it is only one of the factors that have to be considered once we have the director general's advice.

Mr. Macdonald: Will the Chancellor confirm that the reported growth in manufacturing exports to Europe in the last quarter of last year was based upon statistical distortions and that manufacturing exports over the past two quarters have been stagnant, if not, indeed, in decline, confirming that the Government's policies have done nothing to prepare British industry for the single market?

Mr. Clarke: I always treat trade figures with caution, not least because my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is considerably more expert on them than I am. Certainly recent trade figures should be treated with caution,


because the way in which they are compiled has been changed since the beginning of this year. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the proportion of British trade going into the EC has gone up from about 34 per cent. when we joined the Community to about 50 per cent. now. It is a most important market. It is a fast-growing market and British industry is now extremely competitive and well placed to take advantage of it.

Mr. Page: Will not our future success within the internal market in the EC depend on the establishment of standards? What steps is my right hon. and learned Friend taking to ensure that British standards are accepted and adopted within the EEC?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right to say that the question of common standards is a matter of the highest priority. As we move towards the completion of the single market we are making a strong input to ensure that British standards are properly acknowledged and are not simply replaced by those of our competitors. We are also seeking the support of British industry in all the detailed work that is required to ensure that acceptable standards are in place so that we can have a genuinely free market by 1992.

Mr. Gould: Is the Chancellor satisfied that high-volume babble from advertising men is enough to match the much more careful analysis being made by other Governments in conjunction with industry of where their strengths and weaknesses truly lie, and of what advantages and disadvantages they can expect from the internal market? Is there not a worrying sense of dé jà vu about all this? Did we not hear the same hype and complacency in the 1970s and was that not followed by a massive loss of market share to European rivals? Is not the only real difference that on that occasion Lord Stokes at least had enough confidence in his own commercial judgment, even though he turned out to be wrong, to pay for his own full-page advertisements?

Mr. Clarke: I recommend that the hon. Gentleman gets hold of the substantial amount of literature that accompanies our presentation so that he can inform himself better of what the Government are advising British industry on when it comes to the single market. I well remember the hon. Gentleman, when he represented a different constituency, being one of the foremost opponents of our ever entering the EC. I suspect that inwardly he has not changed his opinion since that time. I am surprised that the late Lord Stokes' judgment is called in aid of any of these industrial matters. I have been studying some of the Labour party's advertising campaigns of the 1970s—television campaigns and whole-page advertisements, with leading industrialists and trade unionists urging the country to support the Government in backing price freezes and wage restraints. The difference was that that Government were dreary, second-rate and boring, like their advertisements—

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Chancellor is making a speech.

Mr. Speaker: I rather agree. It does not appear to have much to do with the implications of the internal market.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: When my right hon. and learned Friend publicises the implications of the internal market for British industry, I hope that he will make clear the important need to be even more competitive,

particularly in manufacturing industry. Is not one way of doing that, both before and after 1992, to ensure a better supply of professional engineers and engineering skills? That is the way forward, so that British firms can compete more effectively with industry overseas. After all, we are producing fewer professional engineers than the Japanese. What are we going to do about that?

Mr. Clarke: I can be brief on this occasion because I strongly agree with my hon. Friend both that we need to be competitive and that we shall find it difficult to remain competitive if we do not encourage the training of sufficient people in engineering skills of the right quality. We shall continue to give that matter close attention.

Economic Growth

Mr. Henderson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether his Department is planning any new initiatives to stimulate the economy in the regions outside the south-east.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My Department's recently announced enterprise initiative includes a range of measures which are designed to take into account the needs of the regions and inner cities. The services provided under the initiative will change over time, as the needs of business change.

Mr. Henderson: Will the Minister confirm that at his various breakfast meetings in the north and the south industrialists have told him of the important link between industrial development and housing provision? Will he make representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on the need to prevent further housing development in the green belt in the south, thus preventing further congestion of the south and helping the north?

Mr. Clarke: North-eastern Labour Members arc ingenious. A moment ago the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) found gloom in the booming state of northern industry—or certainly its rapid expansion—but the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) now wants to change the subject to housing. It is certainly necessary to provide proper housing for the employees of industry in the north-east, and the proposals of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to revive the private sector and encourage private investment in rented accommodation will benefit the north-east as well as other parts of the country.

Mr. Tim Smith: Is not the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) right? Would not one way of stimulating the economy in regions outside the south-east be to pursue tougher planning policies on industrial, commercial and residential development in the south-east, so that employers looking for more labour would be encouraged to go to areas of high unemployment? Then, perhaps, the housebuilders might be encouraged to go with them.

Mr. Clarke: If I am to be fair, I might apply to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) the strictures that I applied to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. The nub of my hon. Friend's question must be directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. As a midlands Member of


Parliament and an Industry Minister, I certainly have an interest in prosperity spreading northwards. The sheer pressure of economics—the cost of land and the difficulty of recruiting staff in the south—is helping to stimulate the expansion of the economy in the midlands, the north and the inner cities.

Mr. Eastham: The rest of the country obviously recognises the seriousness of the north-south divide. May I impress that on the Minister in relation to the Channel tunnel project? Will he at least ensure that some of the contractual work, such as the consequential heavy engineering, will go to Scotland, the north-east and the north-west?

Mr. Clarke: As I understand it, quite an amount of work from the Channel tunnel project is going to the assisted areas, although it is not for the Government to place that work. I believe that the economy of the north has a great deal to gain from the Channel tunnel and improved communications with the continent. The recent actions of the National Union of Seamen underline the need for the rapid completion of the Channel tunnel, and we all hope that it is being dug even more quickly while present events continue.

Rental and Leased Cars

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the total number of rental and leased cars in (a) 1987 and (b) 1986.

Mr. Atkins: Estimates by the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association suggest that the population of rental and leasing cars was more than a million in 1987, a substantial rise on the figure of 889,000 in 1986.

Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that that answer reflects the wider success of the car industry, which recorded an 8 per cent. growth in new car sales in the last financial year? Will he join me in congratulating fleet hire companies such as PHH in my constituency on their contribution to cost-effective vehicle use in British industry?

Mr. Atkins: I am delighted to associate myself with my hon. Friend's compliment to PHH. Firms such as PHH, which is one of the market leaders, are rightly well-regarded for the service that they provide and for their contribution to small and large company profitability. My hon. Friend is right in his assessment of the figures, they are yet another indication of the success of the Government's economic policies.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that one or two of these cars are almost certainly rented or leased by employees at the Girvan factory of Rowntree-Mackintosh in my constituency? I share the view that the proposed takeover of that company should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. As so many hon. Members on both sides of the House are saying that, surely the Minister must be getting the message.

Mr. Atkins: I do not think that that has a lot to do with rental and leasing.

Financial Services Act

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the workings of the Financial Services Act.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My Department has received a large number of inquiries and comments about the Financial Services Act in the 18 months since Royal Assent.

Mr. McAvoy: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he tell the House how many hundreds, if not thousands, of firms are operating under the Act with only interim authorisation? Given the recent scandal of EYAS Securities, which had to be prevented from trading only a few days after the Act came into operation, what steps is he taking to ensure that the consumer is properly protected?

Mr. Clarke: It is true that at the moment quite a number of firms are operating with provisional approval. However, even those that have interim authorisation will be subject to much more effective regulation than hitherto. They will be required to observe conduct of business rules which give better protection to investors than that currently available.

Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is highly regrettable that the Financial Services Act does not contain any provisions which would frustrate the attempt by a Swiss company to take over a company such as Rowntree, bearing in mind that the share structure of that company is such that the vital voting shares can be held only by those whom the company agrees can hold them, and that this would militate seriously against any company being able to take over Nestle, which might by that time have swallowed up Rowntree? Is he aware, furthermore, that Rowntree is a very old company established in 1725 and is vital to the industry in York and the surrounding areas?

Mr. Clarke: By one means or another I am being subjected to a number of questions about the state of Swiss law. Personally, I do not approve of the state of Swiss law, and if I were Swiss I would improve it and make sure that Swiss management was exposed to the same commercial pressures as our own. The fact that it is not, as I have said, in some circumstances can be relevant when considering a merger application. However, we have to consider the wider public interest. I know of the concern in my hon. Friend's constituency in Yorkshire, and I can assure him that we will be confirming this as quickly as possible when we have the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Following the closure of IDB last year and Afcor Investments a week and a half ago both—events that I predicted last year would happen, as investors drew my attention to their loss of hundreds of thousands of pounds in over-the-counter shares—is it not quite clear that many fraudsters and swindlers operate in the over-the-counter market? Is it not about time that the Government intervened to protect the public by making the investor protection legislation work? People cannot continue losing money on that scale.

Mr. Clarke: I do not know whether that was another notable figure confessing to the use of soothsayers, but the


hon. Gentleman was obviously very prescient if he gave that advice to his constituents. He is making a case for the provisions of the Financial Services Act, and I can assure him that they will provide much more stringent protection for the private investor in this country in future. Certainly we are determined to ensure that they do that.

Industry (Competitiveness)

Mr. Turner: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures his Department is planning to improve the competitiveness of British industry.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Improving competitiveness is primarily a matter for industry itself. Through the enterprise initiative my Department already offers a comprehensive range of practical advice and assistance on which firms can draw. This will be revised from time to time as the needs of business change.

Mr. Turner: Is the Minister aware of the damage that the rising exchange rate can do to Britain's industrial competitiveness? As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he does not believe that the rate can be sustained, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tell us when he thinks it will begin to fall? Will the Minister tell the House when he will support industry instead of the City speculators?

Mr. Clarke: I do not intend to make any predictions about future exchange rates, and I advise the hon. Gentleman to seek the no doubt expensive advice of those who study the currency markets, who might try to guide him. These matters are not completely under the control of the Finance Minister of any single country. We play our part in seeking to achieve reasonably stable exchange rates and to eliminate unnecessary speculative short-term changes, but in the end it is the markets that determine the level of exchange rates. It is up to British industry to respond by improving its competitiveness in the face of whatever pressures it faces in the market place.

Mr. Hayward: Will my right hon. and learned Friend disregard any strictures from the Opposition Benches about competitiveness, since the Opposition have the most heavily over-manned Front Bench that has ever been seen in this Chamber, to the extent that their own workers and slaves on the Back Benches cannot even make contributions?

Mr. Clarke: I think that it is the first manifestation of the new industrial strategy that this large Front Bench team is meant to be working on. No doubt it will wish to apply to British industry principles that are similar to the ones that it applied in the past.

Mr. Hoyle: How will the competitiveness of British industry be improved if Rowntree is taken over by Nestle? Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ensure that this matter is referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

Mr. Clarke: I can make no more comments on this bid than I have made in the last two days. Heaven forbid that I should ever be repetitive in this Chamber, so the hon. Gentleman knows what I said to him yesterday. To expose the management of companies to all the competitive pressures of the market place, which include vulnerability to acquisition by those who believe that they can improve

the performance of a company, helps to raise the performance of the economy as a whole. We have to determine whether that is the major factor in this case, where the public interest lies and whether there is any case for referring it to the MMC. We shall do this once we have received the advice of the director general upon it.

Mr. Hind: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, due to the success of the Government's policies, there is a shortage of factory space in the north of England? What efforts is he making with the private sector to encourage factory building, which is bound to increase, and thereby improve, the competitiveness of British industry?

Mr. Clarke: We have ensured that English Estates has more resources available to it this year to help the assisted areas. I agree with my hon. Friend that we are now looking to the private sector to meet that demand. One aspect of the improvement of the economy in the north-west is that rents for accommodation are likely to rise because more profitable firms can afford to pay higher rents. That, in turn, will stimulate further development. We must do everything that we can to encourage that development, and the Government will take whatever steps they can towards that end.

European Regional Development Fund

Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects next to discuss matters relating to the structure of the European regional development fund with other European Community Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Atkins: The next Foreign Affairs Council, on 24 and 25 May, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend, is due to discuss the Commission's proposal for a new framework regulation for all the Community's structural funds, with a view to its adoption.
We shall be concerned to ensure that the European regional development fund continues to make its important contribution to British regional development.

Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for his reply On 24 and 25 May, will he and his Department make every possible effort to ensure that the British Government's representatives at those meetings maintain the pressure that the Euro-MP, Winnie Ewing, the local authorities, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and parliamentary representatives in this House from the Highlands and Islands of Scotland have exerted over the past few months to ensure that our access to and eligibility for support from the ERDF, which is crucial to our part of the country, is retained?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will know that recently I had the pleasure of receiving a delegation from the Highlands and Islands. I was pleased to be able to tell the delegation, as I can now tell the House, that I am happy to follow the lead taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in supporting most strongly the Highlands and Islands bid for its fair share of the ERDF. We shall continue to fight our corner as strongly as we can.

Mr. Cryer: In addition to safeguarding ERDF funds from the Common Market, when the Minister is in communication with the Common Market will he tell it that imports of yarn from Turkey are damaging areas in Yorkshire and Humberside, such as Bradford in my constituency, that they have caused the loss of jobs and short-time working in the textile spinning industry, and that the safeguard clause, which is a pretty weak one, negotiated by this Government should be brought into operation as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Atkins: If the hon. Gentleman had been here earlier this afternoon he would have heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade give a definitive answer about a reduction in Turkish yarn imports. Since the hon. Gentleman himself knows as much about the European Parliament as most, I suggest that he takes it up there as well.

South Africa

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current level of British investment in South Africa.

Mr. Alan Clark: Information on the level of United Kingdom direct investment in South Africa is derived from a triennial inquiry conducted by my Department. Based on the latest available results, the book value of United Kingdom direct investment in South Africa, including oil, banking and insurance, was £2,725 million at the end of 1984. Information on portfolio investment by country is not available.

Mr. Nellist: Is not the real figure three or four times that? Despite February's draconian banning of trade unions and other opposition forces, and despite the show trials of Moses Mayekiso, the head of the second largest trade union, and others in South Africa, is not the real reason why the Government refuse to take economic action against the apartheid regime the level of British investment there and the profits from South Africa for British firms, which make donations to the Tory party? Does that not mean more to the Minister and to the

Government than the suffering of millions of black workers and their families in South Africa under the detestable regime?

Mr. Clark: I am glad to act as a foil to the hon. Gentleman for one of his favourite star turns in the House. I submit meekly to his familiar diatribe. Encouraging trade with and maintaining current investment already in South Africa will, we believe, help to protect the jobs of the majority of people in that country.
Later—

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will have been within your hearing that in answer to a question the Minister for Trade referred to the so-called European Parliament. May I have your assurance that permission will not be given to Ministers to avoid accountability in this Parliament by referring to that useless talking shop in Strasbourg?

Mr. Speaker: I hear it described variously as the European Parliament or the European Assembly.

BILLS PRESENTED

SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Alistair Darling, supported by Mr. John Smith, Mr. Donald Dewar, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Frank Doran, presented a Bill to amend the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 May and to be printed. [Bill 165.]

HORSES, PONIES AND DONKEYS (No. 2) BILL

Mr. David Amess, supported by Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Stan Crowther, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Mr. Greg Knight and Mr. Allan Roberts, presented a Bill to protect horses, ponies and donkeys against cruel tethering; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 May and to be printed. [Bill 166.]

Dock Labour (Amendment and Limitation)

Mr. David Davis (Boothferry): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit the provision of rights of registered dockers under the Dock Labour Employment Scheme to the lifetime of those in current employment; to remove from the local and national dock labour boards their responsibilities for recruitment and discipline of registered dock workers, and to provide that, in the absence of a negotiated agreement between the Transport and General Workers Union and the port employers on other matters covered by the Dock Labour Scheme, the Dock Labour Scheme and all other related enactments shall cease with effect from 31st December 1992.
The proposed Bill has three aims. First, it is to stop any further entries in the dock labour register as members who are on the register retire or resign. Secondly, it is to strike out of the current dock legislation those items which cause the worst abuses, particularly on control of discipline and recruitment. Finally and most important, the Bill aims to create a timetable for both sides of the port industry to negotiate an end to the current practices which cripple the industry, and to give us a new industry by the critical date of 1992. In the event of a failure to achieve that, the Bill would lead to the abolition of the dock labour scheme.
The scheme deliberately puts a sword of Damocles over both sides. I shall explain later how there is already a sword of Damocles over dock employers. In that respect the Bill will encourage the development of some measures which Opposition Members have already asked for. On this part of the Bill I am indebted to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) for his ideas.
I can best deal with the problem of discipline by example. In a port on Humberside three years ago a docker was imprisoned, having been convicted of smuggling. When he came out of prison, he was reinstated. It was impossible to dismiss him despite the fact that he had been imprisoned for a criminal offence and that that offence was directly related to his work. That problem is replicated around the country, for example, in cases of theft and other offences. As a result, it is impossible to maintain discipline in the docks, as every docker knows, and, more important, as every customer knows, who then takes his trade elsewhere. The Bill will eliminate that problem.
There are a number of other sad practices that add to the costs of the docks. One of them is known as "bobbing" or, in my constituency port of Goole, as "welting". It is caused by the labour board instructing the docks as to how many people they can employ to do a certain job. The board always instructs too many so that, for example, a Swedish liner service out of Goole has 27 people allocated to it. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House should give the hon. Gentleman a fair hearing and then we can proceed with the next debate, which is an important one.

Mr. Davis: Those 27 people are never all present. At most, there will be 18, so the customer pays for 30 per cent. of his work force who do not work. That practice must end as soon as possible.
"Ghosting" is the technique whereby dock workers are required to mark people who do not work in the docks.
That applies even to non-existent jobs. For example, there is a new cement loading unit at Goole. When a cement ship comes in, the crew attaches a pipe and the ship is emptied automatically. Two dockers are required to "ghost" that process. The customer has to pay for two dockers to do nothing and who may not even be there.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: What about safety?

Mr. Davis: The only safety aspect is whether either one of the dockers falls into the dock.
The scheme increases the cost of the industry in competition with Europe. In Rotterdam and Amsterdam, the cost of loading and unloading ships is between £2·50 and £3·50 a tonne. In Britain, it is between £7·50 and £15 a tonne, three to five times as much. It is ludicrous to expect that that will not affect the pattern of trade. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not in a ten-minute Bill. I have not heard anything so far that is out of order.

Mr. Madden: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not our convention to raise points of order during the moving of a ten-minute Bill, unless it is a matter of order that requires my urgent attention. I have not heard anything out of order.

Mr. Madden: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows our conventions. Ten-minute Bills are not interrupted unless a matter of order requires the attention of the Chair. I have not heard anything that requires my attention as a matter of order and, therefore, I cannot deal with it.

Mr. Madden: It is a matter of order.

Mr. Speaker: I asked the hon. Gentleman on a former occasion whether it was a matter of order for me and it turned out not to be. I shall not take it too well if that happens this time.

Mr. Madden: You, Mr. Speaker, will recall that during the moving of a ten-minute Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) I rose on a point of order and you accepted my point of order. On this occasion, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) is, according to the Register of Members' Interests, a director of Tate and Lyle. I should have thought that, as that company has a direct interest in the docks and in shipping, it would have been appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to have made known his interest.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is riot necessary to mention an interest during a debate if it is in the Register of Members' Interests. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has a direct interest in the matter.

Mr. Davis: I am not aware of having any interest to declare in this matter. I shall shorten what I had intended to say to save time. The net effect of the scheme is the destruction of jobs in Britain. More important, it destroys jobs in the poorest and most difficult areas of Britain. Opposition Members claim that they represent such areas.
In 1992, the Single European Act will be implemented. Yesterday the European Commission published the Cecchini report, which said that between 1·75 million and 5 million new jobs would stem from that Act. Most of those jobs, which will be in Britain, should go to the north-east, the east coast ports, Yorkshire and Humberside and the east of Scotland. Hon. Members who represent those areas should concern themselves with that.
If our ports are competitive, the jobs will go to the areas I have mentioned, but if they are not one of three things will happen. First—and worse—jobs will not be created at all. Secondly, they may go to non-scheme ports such as Felixstowe. Thirdly, trade may be diverted through the Channel tunnel. None of those is in the interests of the north or the north-east.
I should like to quote what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said during a Consolidated Fund debate on the dock labour scheme:
Nothing in the world is sacrosanct. Of course there must be changes and developments, but surely we all want them to be reached on a proper, sensible and agreed basis … All the aspects can be negotiated."—[Official Report, 10 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 596.]
I agree with those wise words. My Bill would allow scope for such negotiation. It would allow time for the industry to find its own solution. That time is limited, however, on both sides.
In April 1990, the European Commission's permission to our Government to subsidise compensation schemes runs out. There is no guarantee that that permission will be renewed. That means that dock employers will have, if they have their own interests at heart, to try to get a scheme sorted out by April 1990. There is pressure on them and on the dock unions.
The Bill would create a sword of Damocles and the right conditions for the negotiated outcome which some Opposition Members said that they wanted when we last debated this issue. If Opposition Members really believe that they stand for the interests of the unemployed, and not for vested interests and narrow factions, they will come into the Aye Lobby with us and will not follow the narrow factions into the No Lobby.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Loyden: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
This is another back-door attempt by Conservative Members to wreck the national dock labour scheme. This issue was last debated only on 10 March when the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) accused me of treating the House to a highly emotional history lesson. There will be a repeat performance today because my perception of the history is not the same as that of Conservative Members.
When I went to elementary school, I listened to a teacher who was showing us a map of the world and said, "All that pink is ours." A nine-year-old said, "If that is so, why is my dad unemployed and why am I in my bare feet?" All the glories of the empire and 1066 and the rest are meaningless. I learned my history from my experience and as a working-class person who worked in the transport

industry and as a seaman. The hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) lacks such credentials. I declare my interest as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union. I declare that interest readily. I act in the interests of those whom I represent.
Today, Mr. Speaker, you unveiled a bust of the late Ernie Bevin, who was once Foreign Secretary. I disagreed with him on a number of things. As the leader of the Transport and General Workers Union and the architect of the national dock labour scheme, however, I know that he is held in the greatest respect in the minds of dockers and working-class people. [Interruption.]

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Shut your mouth!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have a very important debate after this business in which many right hon. and hon. Members hope to take part. Perhaps the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) will get on with his speech.
The Conservative party intends to end the security and order that exists in the dock industry. Its consistent opposition to the National Dock Labour Board arises out of its opposition to any protection for workers, and it is part of the Government's continuing attack on the trade union movement and organised labour.
Conservative Members want to see a return to casual labour on the docks. They want us to go back to the pre-1940s when men assembled at the docks to find work but half of whom were sent home without it and without pay. Men worked at the docks into their 70s and 80s because there was no pension; therefore, they had to continue working to live. The misery and deprivation of dockers and their families is fully chronicled. It is disgraceful that Conservative Members should be trying to revert to the days of exploitation of dock workers. They want to end the system that was introduced by Ernie Bevin, which was endorsed by several reports, including that of the Shaw inquiry and the Devlin report in 1964. Devlin recognised that the order that had been established in the ports was beneficial to the industry.
Members of my union who work in non-scheme ports should see through the intentions of Conservative Members. They enjoy their standards and conditions of work because of the national dock labour scheme. Conservative Members, who from time to time praise the non-scheme ports, should speak the truth. They will attack dockers at Felixstowe and at the non-scheme ports if this safeguard is removed, which is the benchmark of the standards that are prevalent throughout the industry.
Hon. Members who want to honour Ernie Bevin—I doubt whether many Conservative Members will want to do so—should recognise what he did in the 1940s in transforming a cruel and inhumane industry into one that gave men dignity and decent standards of life. They should not vote for the Bill but enter the Lobby and vote against the treachery of the Conservative party.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19.

(Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 167.

Division No. 297]
[3.50 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkinson, David


Alexander, Richard
Bevan, David Gilroy






Blackburn, Dr John G.
Kilfedder, James


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Kirkhope, Timothy


Boswell, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Latham, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Lawrence, Ivan


Bowis, John
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Mans, Keith


Brazier, Julian
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Mates, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Butler, Chris
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Butterfill, John
Miller, Hal


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Mills, Iain


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Mudd, David


Carrington, Matthew
Nelson, Anthony


Cash, William
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Chapman, Sydney
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Conway, Derek
Paice, James


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Patnick, Irvine


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cran, James
Porter, David (Waveney)


Curry, David
Price, Sir David


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Raffan, Keith


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Redwood, John


Day, Stephen
Riddick, Graham


Dicks, Terry
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Dover, Den
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Fallon, Michael
Rost, Peter


Farr, Sir John
Shaw, David (Dover)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Forth, Eric
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Shersby, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Sims, Roger


Fry, Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Gardiner, George
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Gill, Christopher
Stanbrook, Ivor


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Stevens, Lewis


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Stokes, John


Gorst, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Gow, Ian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Thorne, Neil


Haselhurst, Alan
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hayes, Jerry
Waller, Gary


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Ward, John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Warren, Kenneth


Hill, James
Watts, John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Whitney, Ray


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Irvine, Michael
Woodcock, Mike


Irving, Charles
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Janman, Tim



Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Mr. Nicholas Bennett and


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Mr. Jacques Arnold.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Allen, Graham
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Alton, David
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Anderson, Donald
Buchan, Norman


Ashton, Joe
Buckley, George J.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Caborn, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Callaghan, Jim


Battle, John
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Beckett, Margaret
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bell, Stuart
Canavan, Dennis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp;R'dish)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bidwell, Sydney
Clay, Bob


Blair, Tony
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Boyes, Roland
Cohen, Harry


Bradley, Keith
Coleman, Donald





Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Marek, Dr John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cousins, Jim
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Crowther, Stan
Martlew, Eric


Cryer, Bob
Maxton, John


Cummings, John
Meacher, Michael


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Meale, Alan


Darling, Alistair
Michael, Alun


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dixon, Don
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dobson, Frank
Morgan, Rhodri


Doran, Frank
Morley, Elliott


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Eadie, Alexander
Mullin, Chris


Eastham, Ken
Murphy, Paul


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Nellist, Dave


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
O'Brien, William


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fatchett, Derek
Parry, Robert


Flynn, Paul
Patchett, Terry


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pendry, Tom


Foster, Derek
Pike, Peter L.


Foulkes, George
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fyfe, Maria
Prescott, John


Galloway, George
Primarolo, Dawn


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Radice, Giles


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Redmond, Martin


Golding, Mrs Llin
Reid, Dr John


Gould, Bryan
Richardson, Jo


Graham, Thomas
Robertson, George


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Rogers, Allan


Grocott, Bruce
Rooker, Jeff


Hardy, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rowlands, Ted


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ruddock, Joan


Haynes, Frank
Salmond, Alex


Heffer, Eric S.
Sheerman, Barry


Hinchliffe, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Home Robertson, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Skinner, Dennis


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hoyle, Doug
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Stott, Roger


Illsley, Eric
Strang, Gavin


Ingram, Adam
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Turner, Dennis


Lamond, James
Walley, Joan


Leighton, Ron
Wareing, Robert N.


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Lewis, Terry
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Litherland, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Loyden, Eddie
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McAllion, John
Winnick, David


McAvoy, Thomas
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McFall, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)



McKelvey, William
Tellers for the Noes:


McLeish, Henry
Mr. Tony Banks and


McNamara, Kevin
Mr. Max Madden.


McWilliam, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Opposition Day

[11th Allotted Day]

Seamen's Dispute

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That this House, noting that the National Union of Seamen is willing to accept binding arbitration and has agreed, subject to safety and reasonable crewing conditions, to accept the P &amp; O proposals if phased over three years, well before the Channel Tunnel becomes operational in 1993, and taking account of the risk to safety for passengers as well as for seafarers from P &amp; O proposals to cut crewing levels by 20 per cent., recruit untrained crews and introduce a fourteen hour shift day, calls upon the Government to use its influence to bring P &amp; O to the negotiating table and to accept binding arbitration to obtain a settlement which will allow all seafarers affected by this dispute to return to work with justice, and to set up an independent inquiry into the impact of the Channel Tunnel on safety standards and the economics of ferry traffic.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Meacher: The Opposition have called for this debate—and I must state at the outset that we regret that the Government have not seen fit to hold this very important debate in their own time—because we believe that the dispute, which is now in its 14th week, can be resolved only by both sides getting back round the negotiating table. We believe that the maximum parliamentary and public pressure must now be exerted to bring that about.
The origins of the dispute date back to last year when P and O advised the National Union of Seamen that there was a need for rationalisation in Dover to help ferries compete with the Channel tunnel. The NUS accepted that from the start, and it still does. It made that acceptance clear at the meeting in Dover last October between the union's port committee and the P and O chairman, Sir Jeffrey Sterling.
At that meeting, undertakings were given that any rationalisation programme would be phased in over five years to coincide with the scheduled opening of the Channel tunnel in 1993. Only six weeks later, on 4 December, P and O demanded that £6 million and not a penny less should be slashed immediately from the annual wage bill of £35 million. That is a huge cut of 17 per cent.
The P and O proposals involved 400 redundancies plus a package of pay cuts, longer shifts and more days worked. On 2 February crews from all 11 ships of P and O European Ferries held secret ballots on the proposals and decided overwhelmingly that immediate application was not acceptable for safety and other reasons. P and O announced that the changes would be implemented on 4 March and the strike began.
The central point is that, although the proposals are oppressive—and the subsequent option B offered by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and the P and O red book are essentially variants on the same theme—the NUS has been and is now prepared to implement the proposals so long as they are phased in over a reasonable period to take account of safety factors.
At ACAS in March, the NUS said that it would agree to savings of £2 million a year for the next three years giving P and O all that it asked for and the changes could then be introduced steadily and safely. In fact, the NUS has gone even further. It has repeatedly made clear that it is willing to accept binding arbitration and it has been asking for that for 13 weeks. P and O has refused arbitration, rejected ACAS and vetoed negotiations which it broke off after Easter.
P and O has stated its reasons for that stance in its statement which I believe has been circulated to all hon. Members. I want to examine that case. First, P and O states:
P and O European Ferries Dover makes a totally inadequate return on capital—less than 10 per cent.—and investment in new ships or even major refurbishment is impossible.
That seems to be a rather surprising statement when P and O reported to its shareholders that last year was a bumper year during which its profits nearly doubled to a record £275 million of which no less than £41 million came from passenger ships and ferries. It was such a good year that Sir Jeffrey Sterling felt justified in paying himself an extra £635 a week from that record profit level.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No. I want to make some progress and get into the case. I will give way later.
If that record figure of profit is not too bad, next year looks even more promising. City stockbrokers Phillips and Drew expect P and O profits to rise next year to £350 million, including £60 million from passenger ships and ferries. That is a 50 per cent. increase in profits in that area. That is hardly the picture of a company with its back to the wall fighting for commercial survival.
P and O also claims in its statement:
The business faces many future challenges not least of which are the probable loss of duty free sales and the introduction of VAT on passenger tickets, fuel and shipstores in 1992 and the opening of the Channel Tunnel in 1993.
Even if duty-free sales were abolished in 1992 through the implementation of the Single European Act, such a proposal could be vetoed by just one member state.
The EEC Commissioner, Mr. Stanley Clinton Davis, has said that there is little prospect of duty-free sales being abolished. Even if they were abolished, P and O's competitors, Sealink, Sally Line, the short-haul airlines, the hovercraft services and even EuroTunnel, would all be equally affected. There would be no relative loss to P and O. The same argument applies to VAT on tickets, fuel and ships' stores. There is no evidence that that will be introduced. There is clearly no reason why P and O must have the proposals introduced immediately.
P and O also claims in its statement:
Shore staff have been reduced and savings made in other shore costs. Parallel savings are required afloat and agreement with the officers has been reached. A similar agreement is necessary with the ratings.
That might seem to be a surprising requirement when, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a British able seaman grade 1 is already now cheaper to employ than his French, Belgian, Danish, Norwegian, West German and Dutch counterparts. Only Greek, Spanish and Portugese seafarers earn less. P and O also claims that wages have risen by 24 per cent. over the past five years, as if that were too large a rise.
The NUS members have received an average annual increase of only 4·5 per cent. a year, which is less than the rate of inflation. Nevertheless, P and O now states that it wants the same agreement with ratings that it has already reached with the officers. I imagine that that may not be too difficult to achieve since NUS ratings must work 24 hour shifts, but officers are required to work only 12 hour shifts.

Mr. Keith Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that seamen from other EEC countries work longer hours and that is why they are paid more?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I will spell out the hours worked in detail in a moment. British seafarers are paid less for working longer hours.
P and O also claims in its statement:
The union has consistently failed to enter into any commitment to change outdated work practices.
Like the statement made by the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) a moment ago, the P and O statement is simply untrue. The union has given a commitment to change working practices. P and O has sought to give the impression that there will be a bonanza for seamen. P and O's full page newspaper advertisement, which I am sure that many hon. Members will have seen, refers to
our offer of between £11,000 and £17,000 per year with up to 243 days off.
That sounds pretty enticing. However, P and O neglects to say that only a tiny number of senior ratings and skilled craftsmen will earn anything like the top figure. P and O also somehow omits to point out what I should have thought was a very relevant point—that the salaries are for a working week of 72 hours.
The 243 days off also sounds very attractive, but is also equally misleading. A seafarer's working shift is twice as long as that of an industrial worker on shore. We must also consider the rest time. Even the allotted six hours of rest may be broken up into two or three different two or three-hour periods and they are punctuated by engine vibration, Tannoy announcements and by any emergency such as safety drills or sickness cover for which the seafarers remain on call.
Contrary to the impression given by P and O, a seaman is already at a considerable disadvantage compared with the average industrial worker in terms of working hours. The ordinary worker ashore spends an average of 42 hours a week at work and enjoys five weeks' annual holiday with weekends and bank holidays off. That is about 2,000 hours at work each year. Before the strike, the P and O ferry worker was working 93 24-hour shifts a year, which is over 2,200 hours a year. P and O is now proposing 122 24-hour shifts a year. That will be over 2,900 working hours a year, nearly 50 per cent. more time spent at work each year than the average industrial worker.
Another consequence of the proposed work system is that P and O seamen will be denied even two weeks' holiday with their families. The maximum period that could be spent ashore under the P and O proposals would be one week. The P and O offer—the company likes to call it an offer—far from being generous, is extremely harsh.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman claims that seamen are being asked to work a large number of hours. What proportion of the 24-hour shifts are they asleep?

Mr. Meacher: The maximum time that is possible for sleep is about five and a half hours. That is the maximum

from the time that the seamen heaves a shift until the time that he rises and prepares for the next shift. Anyone who has tried to sleep on board ship with clanking chains, Tannoy announcements and emergencies such as drunks on deck who have to be dealt with will know that it is possible to get only a very small amount of sleep. The hon. Gentleman is making my point He is emphasising that the proposals are extremely dangerous because of the fatigue that they will generate.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my hon. Friend. hear in mind that, when the Government inspectors were sent on 10 May to the Pride of Bruges to check it for safety, they found that there were six seamen short with the necessary marine evacuation escape system certificates. Such is the nature of the reduction in crew members. As a result, it was necessary to bring in six members of the catering staff so that the company could get away with it. The funds of the National Union of Seamen have been sequestrated in the face of that sort of action. It is people like Sterling who should be in court and sequestrated, not the NUS.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make such a statement in this debate without declaring that he has an interest? The hon. Gentleman had a cut-price, grace-and-favour flat from the National Union of Seamen without even declaring it in the Register of Members' Interests. The hon. Gentleman makes himself out to be a seagreen incorruptible and yet he has not even bothered to declare that fact.

Mr. Meacher: What the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) has just said is untrue. If he believes that it is true, I suggest that he says it outside. On the other hand, what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said is exactly true. There are appalling consequences for safety to which I shall be referring. My hon. Friend referred to sequestration, and it is true that the NUS's assets have been removed from the union's control. If there were any justice in Thatcherite Britain, the assets of P and O would have been taken away to pay full compensation to the victims of the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster.
One other matter is referred to in the P and O statement with which I must deal. The passage reads:
The Red Book is a revised and improved offer of the terms and conditions of employment of the ACAS proposal, incorporating certain changes requested by the union arid offering an additional £400 per year per man on the Zeebrugge and Boulogne services.
Offer" is certainly a curious word to use to describe a pay cut for some of up to £25 a week, with 28 days more to be worked each year for no extra money, no guarantee of proper rest periods at sea, no payment for excess hours and 459 redundancies.
It is claimed that there will be an extra payment of £400 a year on the Boulogne and Zeebrugge services. It is curious that P and O neglects to point out that seamen will have to work an extra 700 hours a year to earn that sum at precisely 57p an hour. I wonder how many Conservative Members would accept such an offer.
Both P and O and the Minister have made much of the claim that 60 per cent. of NUS members have accepted the new terms. If that is true, why is it that only two of P and O's 11-ship Channel fleet are now sailing?

Mr. David Shaw: Intimidation.

Mr. Meacher: I know that the hon. Gentleman is obsessed with intimidation. The tactics of P and O, which are, "You either accept the red book terms or you are sacked", is a form of intimidation in most people's eyes.
To date, less than 12 per cent. of the NUS members are willing to work. Of those who returned the signed red book agreement, the majority wish now to claim redundancy money or had no intention of crossing a picket line. The NUS has sworn statements from no fewer than 260 members who have now retracted their earlier decision to return to work. Several of the original strike breakers have now rejoined the strike. There is no drift back to work. Instead there is a drift back to strike.
The NUS will not and cannot accept immediate implementation of the P and O red book because there are real safety risks involved in the proposals. P and O's recruitment of untrained staff, the reduction of crewing levels by 20 per cent. and the introduction of an 18-hour shift all put at risk passenger safety only 14 months after the Herald of Free Enterprise went down last year.
Under the P and O proposals, if the Herald of Free Enterprise were to sail tonight from Zeebrugge to return to Dover, it would have a crew of only 65 officers and ratings. That would be 15 fewer than on that fateful night last year. Each of the fewer crew members would be required to work substantially longer and more tiring shifts.
It is not only the NUS and the Labour party that are deeply concerned about safety aspects. At the annual P and O shareholders' meeting last week, a shareholder commented on the Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy being dismissed in one or two lines in the annual report. He said:
I hang my head in shame as a shareholder.
Shareholders should be even more ashamed by the revelation of a Kent constabulary report that during the aftermath of the Zeebrugge tragedy Mr. Peter Ford, the P and O European Ferries chairman, tried to persuade the police to use company figures that showed a higher number of survivors.
Nor is the Secretary of State blameless. Last week he said:
There have been general inspections of ships and their equipment, carried out in Rotterdam by Department of Transport surveyors. Emergency procedure drills were conducted before the ships left Rotterdam".—[Official Report, 5 May 1988; Vol. 132, c. 1016.]
The Secretary of State did not say that those inspections were concerned only with the structural seaworthiness of the ferries and with whether officers and crews possessed the requisite qualifications. The hours which crews are required to work are a fundamental determinant of maritime safety, but they are not regulated by the Department of Trade.
I go further. The Government's amendment to our motion states, among other things, that:
stringent safety inspections have been carried out by Department of Transport surveyors on the P &amp; O ferries 'Pride of Bruges' and 'Pride of Kent', covering not only the vessels themselves and their equipment, but also the manning arrangements and the training of the crew.
I shall put that statement to the test. Today, I have been given by officers and able seamen a number of examples that I shall pass on to the House. The Department of Transport inspector passed the Pride of Bruges as being fit to sail at the end of last month, even though the forward draught marks were not visible. Those marks are a key

safety standard and are vital in checking a ship's stability and its angle in the water. In their absence, stability is checked, I understand, by shoving a stick down the side of the ship.
Only a few weeks after the Pride of Bruges was inspected, a motor-driven lifeboat was launched to give the new crew some experience of lifeboat procedure. It broke down. The lifeboat crew radioed the ship and the other motor-driven lifeboat—and there was only one other—was sent to rescue them. That, too, broke down.
The Government have made specific reference to manning. I ask the Secretary of State to comment on this matter. Although all crew members have a vital life-saving role to play in the event of an emergency, I am informed that on 24 January the P and O vessel the Pride of Dover sailed from Calais to Dover 15 per cent. down on its basic catering staff manning levels despite an almost full capacity passenger load.
I am advised also, as one of the many other examples which have reached my office in the past few days, that bosun Frank Franklin signed off sick from the Pride of Free Enterprise—[Interruption.] I suggest that hon. Members listen to these important details. Bosun Frank Franklin signed off sick on 4 March 1987 and he was not replaced. He left the company officially and permanently on 20 may 1987 and was not replaced. On 17 June last year, the muster sheets still listed Frank Franklin as a crew member. That is one of many examples.
Anyone who examines the muster sheets will see that they regularly record people who have been off sick for six or eight months registered as crew members. Indeed, when the NUS met P and O's accountant and managing director at the end of February to examine the fleet's wage bill, it was found that one person who was on long-term secondment and another who was dead were both listed as crew members.
My final examples concern health and safety, for which the Secretary of State has specific responsibility. I know of a case of the deck crew responsible for chaining down the wagons on the car decks complaining last year about exhaust fumes. As nothing was done, they started to wear breathing masks to protect themselves. They were told by P and O to stop wearing the masks because it would alarm the passengers. I am advised also that one reason why crews are sometimes a little slow in closing bow doors—the significance of which will not be lost on anyone—is so that they may enjoy a little more fresh air, and yet the company has still not accepted an NUS request for air conditioning.
Last year, on the Pride of Free Enterprise—which has been renamed the Pride of Bruges—the hydraulic system for closing the inner doors broke down. It was not fixed for two months, until the ship went for a refit. In the meantime, the only way of closing the bow doors was to use block and tackle. Those examples completely belie the complacent and self-satisfied statements to be found in the Government's amendment.
If all the necessary safety inspections had been carried out, how is it that the "Brass Tacks" television programme broadcast a week ago found that the Pride of Bruges—a sister ship of the Herald of Free Enterprise—frequently broke safety rules? Why did it operate last August bank holiday between Dover and Calais with insufficient seamen to man the back-up fire-fighting team? What would have happened if a fire had broken out in those circumstances? Why do ships still sail when indicator lights on the bridge designed to inform officers when the bow and stern doors


are closed frequently malfunction? Why do officers continue to finish shifts over-fatigued, and why were some officers on that television programme frightened to reveal their identities before the camera when discussing the company's safety record?
I come to my first example. If the Secretary of State is so satisfied with his safety inspections, why is it that, according to information I have been given today, which I shall pass on to him, the P and O vessel Viking Venturer sailed from Falmouth to Portsmouth last Sunday night with seven blackleg, unregistered crew who had been recruited via a travel agent in Falmouth which is not licensed to supply labour—breaking all the ship safety rules? It was a shareholder who at the P and O meeting quoted a sentence from the report of Mr. Justice Sheen's inquiry following the Zeebrugge disaster which I shall repeat:
From top to bottom the body corporate
—he was referring to P and O European Ferries—
was infected with the disease of sloppiness.
Even that sloppy Townsend Thoresen management, as it then was, rejected as being unsafe working conditions similar to those which P and O is now trying to enforce. In Townsend Thoresen's submissions to ACAS in January 1986, during a previous dispute with the NUS, it stated:
Extended hours of work of this magnitude without rest would compromise the safety of the ship and its passengers and crew.
Those were the words of Townsend Thoresen's management two years ago. If that was true two years ago, why is it not true today?
As to the crucial issue of safety, there are two central questions which the Government have always ducked but which the Secretary of State must answer this afternoon. First, why is it that, after the wholesale indictment of the Sheen inquiry on ship safety, P and O has never been prosecuted over its responsibility for the Zeebrugge disaster? It has not even been required to undertake a fundamental redesign of its unsafe, pre-1980 ferries. Secondly, why is it also, if market forces are pushing the ferry companies into choosing between secure business and passenger safety, that the Government will not set up a full inquiry into the economic impact of the Channel tunnel on ferry safety standards? I hope that the Minister will be able to erase suspicion that the Government's reluctance to act on both counts might just have something to do with P and O's contribution of £100,000 last year to Tory party funds.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House who is the treasurer of the Labour party?

Mr. Meacher: The treasurer of the Labour party, as the Secretary of State knows very well, is the general secretary of the NUS, Mr. Sam McCluskie. The difference between the relationship of Sam McCluskie with the Labour party and that of Sir Jeffrey Sterling with the Conservative party is that Sir Jeffrey has had a huge pay-off in lack of prosecutions and lack of any investigation into the safety of his ships.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has just made a serious allegation. Is he prepared to repeat it outside the House?

Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The Secretary of State made an

ugly innuendo about Mr. Sam McCluskie. I made a statement about what, to the great majority of impartial observers, would appear to be the relationship between Sir Jeffrey Sterling and the Conservative party. If I am wrong about that relationship and about the fact that there has been no prosecution of P and O for Zeebrugge and no investigation into the safety of P and O ships, and about all the evidence that has been produced today, and if the Secretary of State can give me a convincing and unequivocal statement to that effect, I shall gladly withdraw.
There can be no more classic illustration than this strike of the irrelevance of the Government's anti-union legislation and the damage it has done in preventing the resolution of disputes. The sacking of 2,000 seamen at Dover in the course of an industrial dispute, using a power given to employers nowhere in western Europe apart from in Thatcherite Britain, has not solved the dispute; it has aggravated it. The secondary action law, based on the sham that the issue with P and O is entirely unrelated to the issue with Sealink, when Sealink had made it clear that it would implement the same proposals as P and O, has not solved and cannot solve the dispute; it has aggravated it. Sequestration has not solved and will not resolve the dispute. It has merely opened the way to an uncontrollable rash of unofficial disputes, and it has also aggravated the original underlying issues of the dispute.
If ever there was a need for a Government committed to negotiation rather than confrontation it is now. The sole responsibility for this continuing dispute lies with the intransigence and unreasonableness of P and O. If the Government now wash their hands, Pontius Pilate-like, of their links with P and O and of their responsibilities for safety, they will have shown beyond all doubt that they are much more concerned with union breaking than with the industrial welfare of this country.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have heard the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) several minutes ago refer to the fact—I see he has snuck out of the Chamber—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman waited until he had gone out.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Amber Valley said that I was speaking on behalf of the seamen because I had been living at a flat owned by that union. He said that it was possibly a subsidised or grace-and-favour flat.
I want to place on record the fact that at no time while I was living at that abode was the flat anything other than regulated by the laws of the land—by the rent officer in the appropriate district. Never at any time was the flat subsidised by the NUS. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to do now what you would do if such a remark happened to have been made by an Opposition Member, and I ask you to demand that the remarks be withdrawn the moment the hon. Gentleman reappears in the Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Gentleman has made his point. We must now get on with the debate.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the point of order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a very short debate and many hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a short and important debate, but the aspersions cast on my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must be dealt with. It is up to you to protect the integrity of the House and to demand that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) withdraw his allegations.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'noting that Government policies have established a sound and stable legal framework for the conduct of industrial relations which has significantly reduced the incidence and impact of diputes; that the National Union of Seamen has rejected various proposals for resolving this dispute; that stringent safety inspections have been carried out by Department of Transport surveyors on the P &amp; O ferries 'Pride of Bruges' and 'Pride of Kent', covering not only the vessels themselves and their equipment, but also the manning arrangements and the training of the crew; believes that the resolution of industrial disputes must be a matter for the parties concerned operating within the law and within their economic circumstances; and condemns acts of intimidation and unlawful secondary action designed to resolve industrial disputes by means outside the law.'.
We have just heard a large number of charges and allegations about safety from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). He made a nasty little speech, adding unsubstantiated allegation to unsubstantiated allegation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will deal in detail with points that the hon. Gentleman made about the Department of Transport and together we shall try to show that the allegations are simply untrue. We shall also investigate the new allegations made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, and make public our findings on them.
The hon. Gentleman's first allegation was that Government surveyors found that the crew were short of six certificated persons to operate the marine escape system. I am told that that is untrue and that the surveyor found that there were more than enough certificated persons on board both ships.
We have also heard the charge that the Government's policy is unduly influenced by the interests of P and O. We shall take what the hon. Gentleman said later in his speech as a complete withdrawal of the nasty allegation he made at one stage. The general allegation is also untrue. I found it extraordinary that he should accuse anyone of partiality given that he has shown his own independence by appearing on the picket line of the NUS. We know exactly where his orders come from. In this dispute he is acting as a spokesman of the NUS.
Most significantly, we have heard almost nothing about the unlawful secondary action of the NUS, which has been the root cause of much of the trouble. We have heard little or nothing about its effect on companies such as Sealink and on the free movement of passengers and freight. We have heard little or nothing about the two days of talks at the TUC, in which the NUS shop stewards once again refused to call off their secondary action. We have heard nothing about the Labour party's position on the NUS refusal to observe the law of the land.
The reason why the Government introduced legislation on secondary action was to prevent industrial action from being used as a weapon against those who are not directly involved with the company in dispute. The Government's action has been confirmed by two general elections. In any test of public opinion there is no doubt that the measures that we have taken are supported by the vast majority of the British public. The Labour party promises to scrap that law. That is only one more reason why it will remain firmly anchored to the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Graham Allen: I am sure that the House is grateful for the history lesson, but the House, the public and the seamen want to know whether the Government are prepared to intervene to try to bring the dispute to an end.

Mr. Fowler: I am covering that precise point.
We want to know from the Opposition their position on secondary action which is now causing vast difficulty throughout the country.

Mr. Allen: What are the Government going to do about it?

Mr. Fowler: What is beyond doubt is that measures on secondary action—

Mr. Allen: What are the Government going to do about it?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman must stop being so pompous. He cannot duck his responsibilities, or those of the Labour party, by such mindless chanting.
The NUS has the right to seek to change the law. There is no question about that. The hon. Member for Oldham, West has the right to promise to change the law. But it must be recognised that no one has the right to refuse to observe the law as it stands. I hope that the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: rose—

Mr. Allan Rogers: rose—

Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way for the moment.
I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham, West will now make it clear that he accepts the law and that he will advise the NUS to lift its unlawful secondary action. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to make the Labour party's position clear.

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose—

Mr. Rogers: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I shall not give way.
I challenge the hon. Member for Oldham, West to condemn secondary action in Britain.

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Fowler: The House and the country will draw their own conclusion.

Mr. Donald Coleman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that it does this House no good to have more than one hon. Member standing in his place during the debate?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member for Oldham, West—

Mr. Rogers: rose—

Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West shows a cringing indifference to the welfare of the British public. The fact is this. Nothing obliged Mr. McCluskie to lead his union into conflict with the law. What has brought the NUS to its present crisis is an obstinate determination to seize, by unlawful means if necessary, what it failed to obtain at the negotiating table.
The law on secondary action is there to protect those who are not involved in a dispute, including companies, from having gratuitous loss or damage inflicted upon them. I must repeat that it is entirely right that such companies should be protected against the reckless and indiscriminate action of a frustrated union.

Mr. Rogers: rose—

Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way.
Nor can it be argued that the NUS has in any sense been caught unawares. The basic injunction banning unlawful secondary action was granted on 1 February, and sequestration was first applied for on 11 February. The union has known for three months precisely what legal risks it was running, and the instructions given to its bank to move its funds showed that it understood the implications of the sequestration imposed on other unions in the past. It has deliberately chosen to disobey the law and it is suffering the penalties which the law provides. It is impossible not to share the views of the judge in the case who said:
The National Union of Seamen has been flagrantly, repeatedly and gravely in breach of the injunction granted by this court … Members and their leaders have only themselves to blame. This is the clearest possible case of deliberate, attempted suicide.

Mr. Rogers: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way.
The Opposition's motion advances a number of bogus—

Mr. Rogers: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Fowler: The Opposition's motion advances a number of bogus arguments, and none is more bogus than the allegations on safety. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will deal at greater length with those matters later, but certain fundamental points have to be made at the outset.
First, safety is an absolute statutory duty. It is an offence to sail boats which are unsafe through undermanning. Moreover, watch-keeping arrangements must be adequate to avoid fatigue. All allegations are investigated and, I repeat, any new allegations will be investigated and offenders will be liable to prosecution.
Secondly, the two ferries plying between Dover and Zeebrugge, the Pride of Kent and the Pride of Bruges, have been exhaustively inspected—not only the vessels themselves and their equipment, but the manning and training of the crew. They must be the most inspected ferries ever to operate from British ports.
Thirdly, it is wholly false to say that P and O operates or proposes to operate with untrained crews. All crews,

whatever their tasks, are given training both ashore and on board about their duties in ensuring the safety of passengers in all circumstances.
Fourthly, the suggestion that the P and O proposals involve undermanning which endangers passenger safety is also false. Crew members may be reduced, but essential safety duties governed by Department of Transport standards are covered.
I repeat for the third time that all allegations, including those made months after the event—some of the allegations of the hon. Member for Oldham, West go back to last year—are being and will be investigated. But we all know that safety is not at the heart of this dispute. It is a smokescreen. Indeed, Mr. McCluskie has said time and again that the dispute is not about the substance of the P and O proposals but about their phasing in. He accepts the new arrangements, but questions their timing. That surely gives the lie to the whole safety argument mounted by the Opposition.
The Opposition ask the Government to use their influence to bring P and O to the negotiating table. should remind the House that P and O was at the negotiating table for several months; that it made significant relaxations to its original proposals; that it lifted deadlines on two or three occasions to allow further time for negotiations; that it participated fully in ACAS conciliation activities from mid-March, and that since the beginning of February those negotiations were conducted under the duress of a strike at Dover.
It was not until all those processes had been exhausted and three months of strike endured that P and O put its final—again improved—offer direct to its employees at Dover. The NUS did not put that offer to the membership—there was no secret ballot on that—but sought further concessions. However, more than 1,000 P and O staff accepted the terms and the company was able to restart ferry operations from Dover.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Why does not the Secretary of State recommend that P and O goes to arbitration? As the NUS has accepted, the dispute has gone through a category of developments and we now want that final development; we want the dispute to go to arbitration. Why does not the Secretary of State recommend that?

Mr. Fowler: If the right hon. Gentleman will wait a few minutes, I shall come to precisely that point.
The Government's view—it is one to which the Labour party usually subscribes when in government—is that disputes should be settled by the parties within the law. Even if that were not the position, there is no case whatever, against the background that I have set out, for the Government seeking to intervene as the Opposition suggest.
The Opposition's motion moves from a reference to the negotiating table to binding arbitration, to which the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) referred. There is an important difference between negotiation and arbitration. In negotiation both parties are able to protect what they consider to be their fundamental interests. No doubt the NUS and P and O did that throughout the prolonged negotiations leading up to the company's letter to its employees on 14 April.
Arbitration takes away that protection and hands over judgment on vital commercial matters to outsiders with no


stake whatever in the success or failure of the company. [Interruption.] If they want to go to ACAS, there is no problem. Sometimes people are prepared to hand that judgment over, either on an ad hoc basis or as the final stage of an agreed procedure. But the decision whether to do so must remain a matter for the parties, in the light of their own circumstances. It is not a matter for the Government.

Mr. John Prescott: The Secretary of State knows that I was party to some of the discussions, at the invitation of the union and Sir Jeffrey. The dispute was about how the £6 million was made up and how much could be saved. There is a genuine dispute between the NUS and P and O about how the figures were arrived at, although I shall not go into the details now. The NUS said, "Let us go to independent arbitration on the question of the figures. If your figures are right, we shall accept them, but if our interpretation is right, we will not." We are talking not about all the commercial details but about how the figure of £6 million is arrived at. That is the simple issue, but Sir Jeffrey does not want anybody going over any of his figures or subjecting them to discussion.

Mr. Fowler: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in and knowledge of this subject. If people are prepared to go to arbitration at some stage, that is a matter for them; it is a decision for the parties concerned. [Interruption.] It must be. There is nothing new in what I am saying. That principle was applied by Labour Ministers, too.
The motion also calls for an independent inquiry into the impact of the Channel tunnel on the economics of ferry traffic. There cannot be many people who want yet another inquiry into the Channel tunnel. The history of the Channel tunnel is a history of inquiries. Labour Members are trying to go back to another age in industrial relations. They must recognise that the tunnel is now being built; the decision has been made. It is up to everyone concerned to make decisions accordingly.
One aspect of the dispute that has received too little attention is the fact that it is handing business on a plate to foreign-manned vessels. Surely we all want an effective and competitive British ferry industry. That is not being achieved by the actions in the dispute, which has caused disruption at the ports, now added to by the actions of the lorry drivers. It has caused hardship and inconvenience to the travelling public and financial loss to companies and members of the NUS. Regrettably and indefensibly, it has also given rise to examples of intimidation and arrest. To date, there have been some 103 reported cases of intimidation, threatening phone calls and daubing of houses and about 17 arrests. That should be condemned by both sides of the House.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he intends to do about the lorry blockade—not by union members but by individuals? What laws apply to those individuals and how does he propose to deal with that situation?

Mr. Fowler: As the hon. Gentleman knows, talks are going on at the moment between Sealink and the harbour board and the lorry drivers affected. If we have further news, we shall convey it to the House as soon as we can.
The Government's role is threefold. First, we must ensure the safety of vessels. I entirely accept that, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Secondly, we must ensure that public order is maintained. Thirdly, we must provide a framework of law in which disputes can be resolved.
We should also be clear where the rights of the public lie in cases such as this. First, there is a right to work without being harassed, intimidated, assaulted or threatened. Secondly, people have a right to make up their own minds whether to strike or cross a picket line. Thirdly, workers have a right to decide whether to sign a contract. Fourthly, everyone has a right to unimpeded access to the ports. There is no right to spread a strike to companies unconnected with the central dispute. There is no right to stop fellow workers going to work or to use force where persuasion has failed. Finally, there is no right to pick and choose which laws to obey. That is why I ask the House to reject the motion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It will be evident to the House that a very large number of hon. Members on both sides wish to speak in this short debate, so I appeal for short contributions.

Mr. Frank Doran: I am a new Member of the House, and a major cause of frustration is that in my short time here I have repeatedly seen the Government duck their responsibilities. I thought that we had sunk as low as we could yesterday when the Prime Minister attempted to foist responsibility for the housing benefit cuts on to local authorities, but what we have just heard from the Secretary of State for Employment boggles the mind. He is attempting to deny responsibility—the responsibility of this Government and his predecessors—for changes in industrial relations law which have meant that an industrial dispute no longer starts with negotiation and with the parties round the table. The Government have removed any encouragement to adopt that course. Instead, we have immediate recourse to the courts and to dismissal notices. It is no wonder that the strike has spread across the country.
Regardless of the laws that the Secretary of State attempted to state, in the full knowledge that the Secretary of State for Transport is blind to the safety laws that the country demands, there must come a time—

Mr. Rogers: Selective recognition of the law.

Mr. Doran: It is selective recognition, as my hon. Friend says.
I am worried about the effects that the dispute is having on my constituency. I represent part of the city of Aberdeen, which has a substantial seafaring community. In my constituency there are more than 4,000 registered members of the National Union of Seamen. As far as I am aware, they are all involved in the dispute. There are also a large number of interests that are quite separate from the dispute. The dispute, which started in Dover and which seems to be about the balance sheet of P and O rather than about anything else, is having an effect on the ferry service to the northern islands and has disrupted supplies to the North sea oil industry.
On Monday I travelled to London to come to the House on the same train as a full-time officer of the National Union of Seamen, Mr. Harry Bygate, who is based in Aberdeen. We spent most of the journey looking through the various writs that had been served upon him. He has now received 18 writs from 18 separate supply companies based in Aberdeen and in other parts of the country. Every one of those writs tells its own story. Every one of those writs means that industrial relations in those companies have been disrupted.
I make no apologies for repeating that P and O, Sealink and every other employer now feels that there is no option but to bring the courts into the dispute at the earliest possible stage, as that provides a major strategic advantage. Negotiation has gone out of the window. There is no incentive for an employer to negotiate, whether that employer is at the heart of the dispute, as P and O is, or whether it is a simple, one-man operation attempting to send vital supplies to the North sea industry. Employers now go to the courts.
The Government, by avoiding their responsibility to the wider interests of this country, are ignoring the serious implications for the future. I must express my disappointment that the Secretary of State simply thumped the table, referred to the various statutes for which the Government have been responsible, and ignored the effect of that law on the wider community. The Government make apologies for their own supporters, the chairman and the board of P and O, but ignore the rest of the country. That raises very serious questions.
I shall give the House one example of the way in which P and O has conducted the dispute. The ferry link from Aberdeen to Shetland is vital, as it carries essential goods and provisions to the islands. The National Union of Seamen is very conscious of the effect that any industrial dispute would have on the service to the islands. Last year it negotiated with the Shetland Islands council an agreement to ensure that essential supplies to the island would be maintained. One ferry per week would be allowed to leave from Aberdeen carrying essential supplies.
As soon as the dispute began, the Shetland Islands council was contacted. The NUS agreed that it would allow that one ferry to go and that the wages of the staff would be paid direct to charity. None of the NUS members would receive any payment. They would work voluntarily to ensure that that vital link to the islands was preserved.
P and O was contacted and asked whether it would allow the profits for that trip to be paid to the nominated charity or to a charity of its choice. The NUS was prepared to leave the choice of charity to the Shetland Islands council. The response from P and O was, "No. We want our profits." The whole dispute is about profit. Nothing from P and O, and nothing from the Government, has suggested anything else.

Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Gentleman has illustrated the position clearly. Undoubtedly, the shipments to Shetland are very welcome indeed. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency there is considerable sympathy for NUS members, and considerable scepticism about P and O's case? Will he explain why the case against P and O is jeopardised when secondary action is taken against, for example, the one-man operation in Aberdeen that supplies

the North sea oil rigs? Does he not think that that muddies the waters and does not allow the focus to be on the real dispute with P and O?

Mr. Doran: I was coming to that. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out that the dispute is with P and O. I am trying to make the point that the dispute has not spread because of secondary action by the NUS, which in my constituency has made its position fairly clear. It stated in court this morning that the action that was taken had nothing to do with the P and O dispute, but occurred because the union's funds were sequestrated. The NUS members have come out because their union has been attacked.
Clearly, the Minister and P and O do not understand the affection in which the union is held. Recently, I was proud to attend the one hundredth anniversary of the NUS in Aberdeen. It was a very moving occasion, when representatives of the city from all walks of life paid tribute to the work of the union.
I have no hesitation in saying that the city of Aberdeen supports the dispute. Last week there was a benefit concert. for the NUS which more than 1,300 people attended. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow.. Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) has reminded me that I should point out that the district council election in Aberdeen was held two days after that concert, and the Labour party took back control.
There is huge support for the National Union of Seamen, and the Government's failure to become involved in the dispute, and the cavalier way in which the Secretary of State dismissed the pressure that the Government could bring to bear on P and O to return to the negotiating table, to allow arbitration and have the claims of both sides independently and objectively tested, show that the Government care nothing for industrial relations. They are concerned for their friends and for profits, and for nothing else. The interests of the British people, the North sea oil industry and industrial relations throughout the merchant shipping industry mean nothing to the Government. They are concerned only with profit and with their friends, and they should be castigated for that.

Sir David Price: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) made a fair point on the extent to which the strike has spread, but he has failed to answer his own question about who is responsible for it.
Let us be absolutely clear that this is not a general industrial dispute between the ship owners, as represented by the British Shipping Federation, and the National Union of Seamen. Nor is it an industrial dispute involving ferries in general. Those who know the industry reasonably well will recognise that the whole method by which ferries are operated is completely different from the method by which deep sea ships are operated. The way of life for the crews concerned is entirely different.
There could be a case for saying that, given the challenge of the Channel tunnel, there might be grounds for a general dispute between crew members, the unions involved and the owners. However, that is not the case. It is an absolutely specific dispute between P and O, European Ferries (Dover) Ltd., and the National Union of Seamen. It does not involve the other ferry companies. Indeed, Sealink, the main competitor to P and O Ferries, has made it very clear that there is no dispute between it


and the NUS. It is worth reminding ourselves that P and O Ferries is no longer a member of the British Shipping Federation. Hence the National Maritime Board is not, and cannot be, involved in the current dispute.
Therefore, the dispute does not of itself raise the issue of how seamen in general are employed, how the terms of their employment are settled, which trade union should represent them, or, indeed, whether they should be members of a trade union. Nor does it raise the wider issue of what is loosely called the closed shop at sea.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Does the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of shipping, agree that the fact that the funds have been sequestrated means that the dispute has spread to the deep sea merchant seamen because they will not allow their union to be attacked in that way?

Sir David Price: The dispute is not about that. I am trying to help the House by attempting to define precisely what the dispute is about.
It therefore follows that any industrial action taken against other shipping companies than P and O must, by definition, be illegal secondary action and must be condemned. That appears to be the view of the courts and that is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment confirmed. Consequently I raise the inappropriateness—that is the most modest word that I can use—of the action taken by the National Union of Seamen against Sealink.
Apart from Sealink not being in dispute with the union, it has offered to take on, perhaps only on a temporary basis, some of the seamen who are redundant because of the action taken by P and O. I can think of no less constructive way of attempting to solve the dispute than the action that the NUS has taken against Sealink. I have no personal interest to declare in Sealink. I am looking at the matter objectively. Are the Opposition really able to support some of the wilder demonstrations involving secondary picketing in a dispute that should be confined to P and O Ferries? On many occasions my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has referred in the House to incidents that do not help to resolve the dispute.
Sealink appears to be on a hiding to nothing. So are the poor old lorry drivers. They have every reason to be angry, but they seem to be completely disregarded by all the parties to the dispute. A number of long-distance lorry drivers live in my constituency. Many other hon. Members will share that experience. Lorry drivers are greatly affected by the dispute. They are the victims of a dispute over which they have no control and to which they are not parties. P and O and the National Union of Seamen ought to think carefully about what is happening to lorry drivers.
Reason and good sense will prevail only when secondary action, with all its consequent overtones, is called off. The dispute is between the National Union of Seamen and P and O. Nobody else is directly involved. My oft-repeated view is that the Floor of the House of Commons is not the right place to attempt to resolve an industrial dispute; nor is it right to attempt to resolve it on television. The speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and the interventions of hon. Members on both sides of the House support my view.
Where should we look for a resolution of the dispute? There are two classic ways to resolve it—by arbitration or by conciliation. Hon. Members know that they are not the same. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to that distinction and I believe that all hon. Members agreed with him. In theory, both arbitration and conciliation remain available, but both options require the active participation of both parties. To use an old saying,
It takes two to tango.
If one party to the dispute is not prepared to participate, there is little that one can do about it.
P and O has said that the time has passed for such approaches and that it has made new arrangements with half its work force. Some may say that P and O should be more co-operative, but as half its work force has accepted the so-called red book offer, P and O argues that it does not need to reopen negotiations with the National Union of Seamen. Where necessary, it is recruiting new employees on the basis of the red book offer. In those circumstances, I do not believe that hon. Members have a legal or a moral locus in the dispute other than in the important area of safety, specifically relating to crew manning and crew qualifications. I shall leave it at that until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport addresses the House.

Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir David Price: No. I want to make only a short speech because many other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
I am using this occasion to offer my personal advice to Jeffrey Sterling and Sam McCluskie. When I was a manager in industry, I was very much involved in many areas of industrial relations that were said to be sensitive, but we never lost an hour, let alone a day or a week, of work through an industrial dispute. I understand fairly well the trade union movement. My first boss, a large, 17-stone Glaswegian engineer, said to me once:
David, it's often our duty in life to stand on our colleagues' feet, but always resist the temptation to push them down in public.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The speech of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) was certainly more reasoned in tone than that of the earlier contributions. At the risk of losing any friends that I may have in the House, I must say that the Front Bench speeches displayed the unacceptable faces of both the Labour and the Conservative parties. It became a straight shouting match. Both sides were selective over the facts that they chose to use to promote their arguments. It is important that the facts should be considered in the round.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh referred to secondary picketing. It is not just a legal question. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) has laid himself open to criticism. Sequestration took place because of secondary picketing. I am not sure that in law it is a defence to say that the subsequent extension of secondary picketing was due to sequestration. Leaving aside the law, secondary picketing seems to me to be a very unwise tactic for the NUS to adopt. The dispute is between the NUS and P and O. To target Sealink is extraordinary because Sealink is a potentially useful ally of the union.
I do not understand why the NUS cannot see that the best way to defeat P and O is for it to have a successful


competitor that can offer additional services. If it were successful, it would keep P and O ships in port and out of operation. That would provide the NUS with a much better chance of pressing its dispute to a successful conclusion. At the least, it would ensure that conciliation and arbitration were used.
I should have liked the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to urge the Dover port committee to listen to the advice of Sam McCluskie. He should have asked for the secondary picketing to be called off and for all attention to be concentrated on the union's dispute with P and O. It is regrettable that the Secretary of State for Employment failed to condemn the intransigence of the P and O management. P and O is clearly intent on becoming a non-union company. It is possibly even paving the way for becoming a non-British company.
In the last two days Government spokesmen have referred to the right of trade unions in Poland freely to organise and pursue their legitimate ends, but quite different speeches have been made by Ministers in the context of the legitimate actions of unions in this country. The P and O management is exploiting a weak union and the law, and it is doing so in such a way as to raise a number of serious questions.
There is evidence that at the meeting of P and O shareholders last week the management did not have the support of all its shareholders. Members will have seen the article in The Guardian which said:
thc company was accused of intimidating the workforce, being used as the militant wing of the Conservative party and neglecting safety. The chairman, Sir Jeffrey Sterling, was urged to resign unless he went back to the negotiating table and was even accused of doing more moonlighting than some of the employees he had criticised.
Those criticisms were made by shareholders of the company, but their attempt to raise the issue was ruled out of order. Victor Keegan, the author of The Guardian article, asked the pertinent question; should there not have been a secret ballot of the shareholders to find out whether that view had significant support? The point that I am making is that shareholders in P and O are less than happy about the conduct of its management and its intransigence. That is an interesting and relevant development.
Even more to the point, the Secretary of State seemed to imply that he did not see a role for arbitration in resolving disputes. He seemed to suggest that that method of resolving disputes should not apply in this case or in future. When there is intransigence and inability to resolve a dispute, conciliation and arbitration are necessary. It would have been a welcome move if the Secretary of State had at least taken the opportunity to encourage the management to take account of that.
The safety issues that have been raised have been dismissed in a cavalier manner. Representations made to me show that there is real public concern. For the Government to be so offhand when the tragic memory of the Zeebrugge disaster is so fresh in people's minds is alarming. The management of P and O is seeking to ensure that its crews work much longer hours and on a smaller staffing ratio. It has already been made clear that if the new arrangements had been in operation, the Herald of Free Enterprise would have sailed with 15 fewer crew and staff and that they would have been more overworked and more tired than they were at the time of the disaster.
That suggests that there should be independent regulation of staffing methods rather than that being left to the commercial judgment of a management which has

already been shown to be severely flawed. In these circumstances, the Government have not given the assurances that would inspire public confidence that they put safety above commercial interest and profit. it seems that they have not learnt the lesson of the Zeebrugge tragedy. The public would have expected the Minister to demonstrate that the Government had done so.
I support free enterprise enthusiastically, but it should be fair. The crucial difference between the approach of my party and that of the Government is that fairness is not of interest to the Government, either in the operation of the market or in the balance between management and employees in the operation of companies. It is extraordinary that the Government do not believe that they have any locus or responsibility in the matter.
It would be helpful if the Labour Front Bench would urge the Dover committee to accept the advice of Sam McCluskie to call off secondary picketing and concentrate on the dispute with P and O, and if the Secretary of State for Transport put pressure on the P and O management to recognise that a negotiated settlement is in everyone's interest if British-owned ferries are to have a constructive future in the strategic interest of ensuring that, as an island nation, we have safe, well-operated, efficient and consumer-satisfying ferry services operating across the Channel.

Mr. David Shaw: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate which concerns my constituency. As always on matters concerning his constituency, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is in his place on the Bench beside me. He has followed events closely throughout the dispute. He has been deeply concerned about the intimidation and other threats in his constituency because of the dispute.
As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the conventions of the House prevent my hon. and learned Friend from taking part in the debate, but both he and I wish to thank first and foremost the police who have had a very difficult task throughout the dispute. I visited the police station in Dover to get a briefing on the position. Many policemen have been involved, not just from Kent but from other counties. They have had to work long hours. When missiles were thrown in one incident which started at 1.30 am, policemen who had gone off duty at 11 pm had to be called back. We should not forget that policewomen are also carrying out police duties on the picket lines, and we must thank them as well.
I also wish to pay tribute to all those, striking or not, who work in the ferry industry in Dover and Folkestone. Some 6,000 people work directly in the industry and many more are involved indirectly. About two thirds of them are not involved in the dispute and they want to get on with their jobs. Over the last 30 years the ferry industry in Dover and Folkestone has expanded considerably. Sadly, there have been quite a few strikes; 1985 was a bad year when there were five strikes. Consequently, profitability has been low. Figures supplied by the trade union research unit at Ruskin college, Oxford, show that the profits of P and O today are less than they were 10 years ago. These are the trade unions' own figures. I have them here for any hon. Member who wishes to inspect them.
The changes that will be required in the ferry industry are severe and deep. The Channel tunnel is fundamental to those changes. Also, in 1992 the removal of duty-free goods and Customs barriers will necessitate changes in the ferry industry. Indeed, the trade union research unit report said:
There can be little argument concerning the need to rationalise the present ferry operations to compete with the tunnel.
The dispute is a tragedy for the working people of Dover and for the shopkeepers and the small business men of Dover and Deal. It is also a tragedy for the lorry drivers whose frustration has resulted in their queueing on the M20. It is a tragedy for people all over the country who have been affected by it. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has brought to my attention the fact that in her constituency a small transport firm is threatened with being put out of business. Eight families are heavily involved.
Since the strike began I have had considerable contact with all parties in the dispute, including members of the National Union of Seamen and of the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers. As well as speaking to union officials and company representatives, I have talked to shopkeepers, freight companies and others affected by the dispute. There is no question but that many trade unionists were sensible and moderate. Early in the dispute many told me that they did not like the original blue book terms issued by the company in December. Some of the officers thought that those terms were difficult for the crews to operate.
I put those points to P and O which was at ACAS at the time, undergoing the advisory, conciliation and arbitration procedures. ACAS suggested new terms. P and O took on board the points that had been put to me and those put by ACAS. After three months of negotiations and arbitration, the company produced new terms known as the red book. The union then rejected those terms without explaining them to its members.

Mr. Prescott: The members rejected them.

Mr. Shaw: The union rejected them. I shall come to that point in a moment.
The union members raised a number of concerns with me and I am sure that hon. Members will not object if I detain them with some of the detailed points. They wanted to know how long the red book terms would last. I put that point to the company which said that it envisaged that they would last at least two years. That was a reasonable request from reasonable trade unionists who were worried that the terms might be renegotiated in six months.
The union members wanted to know why the basic pay was below National Maritime Board rates, so I put that point to the company. The company explained to me that the rates of pay were between £11,000 and £17,000, of which many people in this country would be envious. However, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) failed to mention that not only is that basic rate of pay payable, but that there is in addition a cash profit-sharing scheme and a shares profit-sharing scheme.
When I put those points to the union members, they asked how the profit-sharing scheme worked. They said that they were not aware of a cash profit-sharing scheme. They said that the union officials had not told them about

that scheme. I therefore asked the company how it worked, as any logical and sensible person would do. The company told me that, in North Sea Ferries, part of P and O, where a successful profit-sharing scheme is in operation, it can mean another 30 pay days per year if the company is successful. That is in addition to the shares profit-sharing schemes.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware that those incentives were not available to ordinary seamen when I was a member of the National Union of Seamen and an employee of P and O in 1965?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend makes a good and valid point. When I go on to mention some of the other terms and conditions, I expect that his mouth will water and that he will wonder why he left shipping and came to the House of Commons.
Many of the men were concerned about the rest periods, just as many hon. Members would be concerned. Is it true, as the Labour party has said in its statements, that men can be required to work for 18 hours non-stop? Of course it is not true. They have 10 hours off and six hours off for sleep are guaranteed, except in emergencies. Out of a 24-hour period, the normal working period would be 14 hours, but that 14-hour period would be broken up by meal breaks and by a sleep break. [Interruption.] The men have meal breaks, just as anyone else does.
I discovered that there were other points that the union officials had not explained to their members. Trade union officials told me that the red book redundancies were worse than the blue book redundancies. When I put that point to the company, it said that there were 100 fewer redundancies under the red book terms than there had been under the blue book terms. It is no wonder that there is a strike when the union officials do not properly explain the contracts to their members.

Mr. Prescott: The points mentioned by the hon. Gentleman were spelt out in the document given to the company and distributed to every member who voted on it. In one case, where the members wanted to vote, the owners instructed the courts to intervene to stop the NUS conducting a secret ballot.

Mr. Shaw: I shall deal with the ballot procedures in a moment. Those procedures are very interesting.
At my meeting with the union officials and members, I asked how they would decide whether to accept the new terms, including the good pay and other favourable aspects. They told me that there would be a car park meeting. I asked why they had decided to hold such a meeting. That question was also asked by others, so it was not a case of a Tory MP creating political bias. There were 20 union members—about half of those present at the meeting in Dover—who said that they wanted a secret ballot, although the union insisted on a car park meeting.

Mr. Prescott: The courts stopped them.

Mr. Shaw: No, they did not. I received anonymous phone calls at home, asking why the union would not give its members their dignity by allowing a secret ballot. Then I discovered a letter from the union, dated 22 January, telling its members that there would be a secret ballot. The union proposed a postal ballot to its membership. According to an article in The Times of 6 May, the letter stated:


the outcome of negotiations with the company on new work rotas would be 'placed before the fleet by way of a postal ballot and you alone will decide whether to accept or reject the offer'.
Why did the union not do that? The headline of the letters page of my local newspaper the East Kent Mercury asked:
Why wasn't there a secret ballot?
That is what a seaman's wife who wrote to the paper wants to know. She said:
Nothing has been said of the fact that there was not a secret ballot at the start of this strike and that at all the open meetings, where there was a show of hands, many of the people there were not even employees of P and O.

Mr. Allen: Read us another one.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman wants another letter. The Dover Express has another letter for him. Unfortunately, the writer of that letter was too terrified to give details of his or her name and address, but the newspaper is prepared to supply the name and address, if necessary. It asked:
Isn't it time the union held a secret ballot for its Dover members?
Those are the letters of ordinary men and women who work on the ferries. Those people want a secret ballot. Hon. Members will wonder what happened in those car park meetings in Dover. Was the 30-page contract discussed? Were all the terms and conditions discussed? Were the £17,000-a-year salaries discussed? I accept that those salaries are at the top of the range, but were the £11,000 to £17,000 salaries discussed? The details were not discussed.
The motion, which I heard myself, was, "Do you think that the company should go back and negotiate more?" One might just as well ask a man whether he has stopped beating his wife. Obviously, if one asks people whether the company should go back and negotiate further, they will say yes, especially in an open meeting surrounded by many people who do not even appear to he employees of P and O. It was a disgraceful meeting in the car park. There should have been a secret ballot.

Mr. Prescott: Why?

Mr. Shaw: There should have been a secret ballot because the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the NUS. said:
My trade union actively ballots, in most cases by way of postal ballot, on matters concerning strikes, the election of officials, the political fund—;the political fund will now be governed by legislation—and various other matters. In other words, ballots are an integral part of my union.—[0fficial Report, 23 April 1985; Vol. 77, c. 777.]
Why no secret ballot then?

Mr. Prescott: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he has presented no evidence to support the charges that he is making. It is written in all our union books, and has been for a long time, that we have secret ballots. The newspaper quotation that the hon. Gentleman gave confirms the union's policy. We have ballots at the outcome of negotiations.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman has got to do it. If he wants it, let him have it. He must say now—I shall give way to him if he wishes—that he will go to Sam McCluskie and the Dover port committee and ask for a secret ballot.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Prescott: The NUS has made it clear that, when agreement has been reached in negotiations, the matter will be put to the members in a secret ballot. [HoN MEMBERS: "When?"] When the union concludes negotiations and when Sir Jeffrey Sterling comes back to the negotiating table.

Mr. Shaw: I fear that the hon. Gentleman lacks credibility. Only one secret ballot has been held. I have here the yellow paper on which it was conducted. It shows the terms on which people have accepted work. Some 1,100 have accepted, and 985 of them were audited by the closing date by the treasurer of Kent university, who is generally accepted as independent. The paper says, "I"—there is then a space for the full name and rank—
apply for employment on the new terms and conditions proposed by the Arbitration and Conciliation and Advisory Service as detailed in the enclosed document.

Mr. Prescott: That is not a secret ballot.

Mr. Shaw: It must be a secret ballot because the forms were carried back to the P and O offices by members of the postal workers union. Unless Opposition Members maintain that communications workers opened the mail, it must have been a secret ballot.

Mr. Prescott: A secret ballot paper does not show a person's name.

Mr. Shaw: I should be grateful if Opposition Members would allow me to continue. I wish to finish to allow others to speak.
The House will want to know some of the terms that are being offered. I spoke earlier of the salaries being offered and of the cash profit-sharing scheme and the shares profit-sharing scheme. There is free travel at least once a year for signatories to the new terms. Duty-free goods are available at special prices. There are other benefits.
The House will be aware that the 24 hours on, 24 hours off service is already operated by other shipping lines. There are many shipping lines which operate around the British coast that work two crews per ship. P and O proposes three crews per ship. That is a change from 3·6 and an improvement on the original blue book terms of 2·4. P and O's main competitor in Dover—Sealink— already operates 24 hours on, 24 hours off terms. Indeed, they were negotiated by the NUS with Sealink two years ago.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), who has experience of working in P and O and was a member of the NUS, had one week's compassionate leave available to him. That is what P and O is putting on offer. This hard-nosed employer, as the Opposition describe it, is making one week's compassionate leave available for anybody who has a relative who dies. I did not get that when I was at work.
The terms cannot be all that bad—1,100 people have accepted and 5,000 more applicants have not been accepted. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will consider all these factors. There is no question but that safety is paramount. It is not, however, the scaremongering safety that we heard about from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). What he said was unrealistic, unsubstantiated and, for all we know, untrue.
The public will want reassurance, as I am sure hon. Members will. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be able to confirm what I have been told following my inquiries—that his inspectors have checked and approved the ships, lifeboats, operating procedures and crewing arrangements of each P and O ship that puts to sea.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West frequently talks about the number of crew being reduced. He fails to say that his figures are for the Zeebrugge route and that the main change to that route is that one restaurant is being closed. The majority of the crew he referred to are waiters and waitresses who will not be required because of a restaurant closure.
The House will want to know that the company has assured me that any question about safety that I or any other hon. Member wants to raise with it will be dealt with. The company has assured me that its practice is always to overcrew.

Mr. George Galloway: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that some of those waiters and waitresses on whom Conservative Members spat and are still spitting their contempt saved lives during the Zeebrugge disaster involving the Herald of Free Enterprise? They are vital members of the crew when accidents or fires occur.

Mr. Shaw: I freely confirm that, in my constituency and in many others, seamen lost their lives and saved the lives of others. They were seamen involved in all aspects of work. They are all important. That is why the company told me, following my inquiry, that it is the practice always to overcrew ships in case somebody goes sick. There are therefore always enough people to man lifeboats and to cope with accidents.
If any examples of that not being the case are reported to me, I shall be happy to investigate and pursue them. I would be the first to shout in the House if that happened, and I have told Sealink and P and O that. I represent a ferry port, as does my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. It is important to both of us that the ferries are safe, because our constituents work on them, travel on them and earn their livelihoods from them.
One aspect of the terms will make ferries safer than ever before. The company has insisted—it is fundamental to the terms—that no alcohol will be consumed by any crew member on board a ship.
I spoke earlier about the difficulties facing the police. I would like to think that all hon. Members condemn the acts of violence and intimidation. People with weapons have been arrested. There has been damage to somebody's car. A company tie was tied around the windscreen wipers with the message, "Next time, this will be around your son's neck." Missiles have been thrown at coaches. Homes have been daubed with paint. They are not just seamen's homes—an 81-year-widow's home was daubed.
The intimidation is dreadful. Lists of people who are working have been assembled and circulated on picket lines. The subjects then receive telephone calls. A video recording was made of people disembarking the aeroplane when they went to crew ships. The videos were taken because, the union admitted, it wanted to have a record of

who was going to work. There have been pickets at coach pick-up points. People are frightened to drive their cars across the picket line, so they have been picked up by coaches. There have been pickets at those pick-up points and one was shown on television saying to a man getting on a coach, "You have got to live in Dover for the rest of your life."

Mr. Andy Stewart: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend. Will he convey my constituents' sympathies to his constituents? We endured similar circumstances for 12 months, but in the end right prevailed.

Mr. Shaw: I accept those sympathies on behalf of my constituents. I read the interventions and speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) during debates on the miners' dispute. It is with annoyance and infuriation that I find some aspects of the miners' dispute being used in the seamen's dispute.

Mr. Prescott: It is the same legislation.

Mr. Shaw: Is the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) saying that he approves of intimidation at coach pick-up points?

Mr. Prescott: No, I do not; nor does the National Union of Seamen. The police have been in attendance at all those pick-up points and they say that there has been none of the sort of intimidation that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman must wonder why about 100 acts of intimidation are being investigated by the police and why 17 people have been arrested. If the hon. Gentleman looks at some of the videos on television he will see a member of the National Union of Seamen making such remarks as people get on to coaches. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will ensure that people do not picket coaches as people are getting on them.
Many members of the public are asking why the Opposition's motion does not condemn or mention acts of violence and intimidation. Many members of the public will want to know why speeches made by Opposition Members show no care about 81-year-old widows having their homes daubed with paint in the middle of the night. Opposition Members express care for 81-year-olds only during debates that suit them. Many members of the public are asking why the Labour party called on the labour movement to show solidarity in every possible way. Many of my constituents are wondering what that solidarity meant, particularly as that statement was made following acts of violence and intimidation, which have continued since it was made.
Many people are beginning to ask what the Labour party has done in this dispute. Has it helped to solve it? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Has it issued statements condemning violence? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Has it supported Sealink employees who have been prevented from working by secondary action? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Has it supported the 1,100 seamen who want to work? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Has it supported the 700 officers, and their union, who want to work? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Has it supported the many trade unionists who want a secret ballot? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] What has the Labour party done? [HON. MEMBERS:


"Nothing."' No, it has done something. It has used the dispute to fight the leadership election for the Labour party. Eight Labour Members—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Noise prolongs speeches.

Mr. Shaw: At least eight Labour Members have been on the picket lines. They have been noticed by Labour supporters in my constituency. One may wonder what is happening to those Labour supporters in my constituency. My agent is receiving telephone calls from them and they are saying that they will never vote for the Labour party again.
In 1966 the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Hafer) used some moderate words and said that disputes should be handled with care and moderation. Why do Labour Members go on the picket lines and use words such as, "War", "Struggle" and "the need for victory"?
The needs of my constituents are to get back to work, to be free to work, to be free of violence and intimidation, to allow our shopkeepers and small business men to return to normal trading and to keep the port of Dover open and the ferry industry going. I hope that the Government will support those needs, because, if they do so, my constituents and those of other hon. Members will benefit and the only losers will be those who do not want a settlement.

Mr. Tony Benn: I now understand why P and O put £100,000 into the Tory party. It has received very good value from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). He told the House how he took every query raised by the seamen to the company and took the company's argument back. Apparently, seamen do not need a trade union because the hon. Gentleman will look after their interests, wherever they are in the world. They need only make a telephone call to the hon. Gentleman. P and O made a wise choice in picking the hon. Member for Dover. His speech was quite appropriate for a car park full of readers of The Sun, and no doubt those are the people who will follow it tomorrow.
One of the most odious aspects of the debate is that, after all the phoney patriotism of the Tory party about our seafarers during the Falklands war, and all that we as a nation owe to the seafarers who took part in the convoys during the last war, the true interests of seafarers should be treated with such contempt by the party that allows the Union Jack to flutter over its conferences.
We are discussing the safety of passengers, and nothing that has been said or done by Ministers responsible for safety at sea has been adequate, given the loss of life in the Zeebrugge disaster. The manager responsible for the Chernobyl power station was imprisoned following the death of people there, but there has been no appropriate action here, so it is hard to believe that the Government do anything other than share the desire of P and O to maximise its profitability.
When Ministers talk about the right to work—this dispute is about the dismissal of people—it is so hypocritical as not to carry weight with anybody listening outside the House. And if there were a ballot by seafarers on whether they want Sir Jeffrey Sterling to run their company, I have no doubt whatever what the outcome would be.
The debate has a certain quality, because the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), in his role as a kind manager, tried to warn the Front Bench not to be so provocative. We had "a Guardian leading article of a speech" from the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr Bruce). He not only wrote his own speech, but actually read from a Guardian article too. He knows quite well that there is sharp conflict in the House, because the two sides take completely different views about what should be done.
Ministers represent P arid O and its interests. I understand that they employed Sir Jeffrey Sterling to advise on the anti-union legislation. When he became chairman of the company, he put money into the Tory party and enjoyed the benefits of the legislation that he helped to draft with the assistance of judges, who under our curious system are appointed by the Prime Minister.
The Opposition are closely linked to the National Union of Seamen. That union is affiliated to the Labour party because it wants a voice in the House against the sort of Tory party that is facing us. The hon. Member for Dover made a lot of Sam McCluskie being treasurer of the Labour party. That is true, and we are proud of it, but the National Union of Seamen cannot put money into the Labour party without a conference decision being made. Who held a ballot in P and O to authorise Sir Jeffrey Sterling's decision to put money into the Tory party?
It is also true—and I am proud of it—that the Labour party's national executive committee, with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in the chair, was unanimous in passing a resolution supporting the NUS and asking others to support it. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) went on the picket line as the Front-Bench spokesman and gave great hope to those who wanted to feel that in the House we spoke for them. In addition, my hon. Friend gave a marvellous presentation in the House today of the seamen's case, bringing out the fact that they want arbitration and a settlement of the dispute. It is against that background that the House must consider what is happening.
What is occurring today is the culmination of a long strategy that the Government have followed to attack and, if possible, to destroy trade unionism in Britain. It began with the readiness to spend £5 billion or £6 billion trying to defeat the miners and printers. It was followed by the use of the phoney argument of security to get rid of all the trade unions at GCHQ, under American pressure. How one is safer if a person who was in a union is not a member any more, I have never understood. If a man would give up his union membership for £1,000, I should have thought that that might throw doubt on his commitment to the security of the state. But that was done by threat. Then the Government fully supported Ford in trying to force upon the car workers in Dundee unions which they did not wish to be their representatives.
Now there is full support of P and O and the attempt to destroy the NUS through derecognition by P and O, after a long period of recognition as part of old maritime arrangements. The courts have been used to threaten sequestration if the NUS held a ballot. That has happened after all that we were told about ballots for this and ballots for that. When the NUS wanted a ballot, the judge, no doubt appointed with such an idea in mind, told the union that it would lose its funds if it consulted its members. So much for the hypocritical argument that we heard from the Tory party. The courts have stolen the money that belongs


to seamen who are not involved in the dispute. The hon. Member for Eastleigh asked why the dispute should not be limited a bit, but the courts, through the legislation that he supports, have stolen the funds contributed by seamen who have nothing whatever to do with the NUS action.
Those are arguments that are understood outside the House. It amounts to the reimposition of the Combination Acts to make effective trade unionism illegal. The key question for us in the Labour party is how to defeat that strategy. None of my hon. Friends who will speak in the debate expects to have any influence on the Tory party, but we must try to point out to our friends who are in struggle how to win that struggle, because Labour Members want the seafarers to win. Their objective is arbitration. But if it is denied, the purpose of my right hon. and hon. Friends is that the seamen should win against P and O. Let there be no question about that.
The answer is that the seamen's victory will depend upon their own efforts. It will not depend upon speeches that are made in the House. We shall be trounced tonight in the Lobby in accordance with the predictions, just as we were with the computer predictions at the previous general election. But the seafarers have the capacity to win. On the radio at lunchtime I heard an hon. Member saying that the time has come for wiser counsels to prevail. That showed that he recognised, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh recognised, that the seafarers have done very well in getting their case over to the public. Victory also depends on the amount of industrial support that is available to them from other unions. Public support is growing. I read about the lorry drivers putting in their penn'orth, which shows that the Government's legislation is not capable of dealing with the situation.
The seafarers will decide how to run their own strike. It is not for anybody in the House to tell them what to do, and court action will not stop them, for one simple reason. When the unions began, they did not have any money to sequestrate in the first place. If the courts steal the unions' money, they will go on without it because, unlike companies, trade unionism is not measured by the bank balance. It is measured by what is in people's hearts when they feel that their cause is right. One can steal their money and take away their offices and typewriters, but one cannot beat trade unionism by court action. It cannot be done in Poland, and it cannot be done here. That point needs to be made.
When trade unionism began, it was illegal. It was established by breaking unjust laws. I know that nobody in the House likes this to be said, because we sit in a little club and pretend that we gave every liberty to everybody from this Chamber. It is not true. That is why we enjoy the right to worship as we like, the right to have trade unions and the right of men to vote. The Prime Minister would not have been Prime Minister if the suffragettes had not broken the law to force women's suffrage.

Mr. John Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: I shall not give way because I am coming to the end of my speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "They do not like it."] Of course the Tory party does not like it.
In the end, the five Employment Acts carried through by the Tory party will be repealed, just as the Taff Vale

judgment was repealed by legislation, and just as the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act was repealed by a subsequent Government—

Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Benn: I am not giving way, and it is not a point of order.

Mr. Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate to have a leadership election speech in this debate?

Mr. Benn: What really frightens the Tory party is that the Leader of the Opposition is leading a completely united party. That is what it is all about.
The Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act was repealed, and the Industrial Relations Act was repealed. I believe that the seafarers' struggle has a better chance of succeeding than that of the miners or the printers, because many other things have happened in the meantime. A parallel has been drawn with the miners. I tell the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) that the miners' support groups, established four years ago, are back in action and have been giving money and support to the seamen in their struggle. The printers are doing the same.
Those who watch the Tory party, with its long pretence of fairness, have also seen the Budget, the social security changes, the poll tax and all the other things that have happened.

Mr. Redwood: rose—

Mr. Benn: I am not giving way. I am in almost my last sentence.
The Tory party has been critical of the trade union movement for a long time. I looked for the root of some of the arguments and found two quotations. The first is about industrial action:
the real intention was to strike a full blow in the face of the State's authority, against the middle classes and against disciplined order".
The second quotation speaks of the trade union movement as
being used merely as the battering ram for the class war.
The first quotation is from Mussolini's autobiography, and the second is from "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler.
I said in the House the other day—I invite hon. Members and my colleagues to look at it—that weekend speeches by Ministers and the policies that they follow in respect of the trade union movement can be traced right back to what was said in the 1920s and 1930s in Italy and Germany. Combine that with the attack on the Greater London council and on local authorities, and the court protection to deny us the right to read what Peter Wright wrote in "Spycatcher", and one gets a very clear idea of a Government who are set to undermine democratic rights in this country.
And in the struggle for democratic rights, nobody has done more than the trade union movement to win the rights of working people in industry and to build democracy.

Mr. James Hill: I have never seen a better demolition job done on the Labour party than that done this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). He not only answered every point—


certainly to my satisfaction—but he carried the fight into the enemy camp, and he had some of the heavies in the Opposition reeling from shock. I congratulate him. As an hon. Member representing a Southampton constituency, I have been worried that secondary picketing might slow down the progress of the port of Southampton. This afternoon we have had a difficulty, of course, with the QE2. I have received a telephone message that all the picketing by the National Union of Seamen to prevent the QE2 from sailing this afternoon has been to no avail. It sailed just after 4 o'clock, and is now beginning to make its return journey to New York. The NUS seems to be losing the battle outside the Dover area.
I have a newspaper cutting about the Canberra. The NUS has pleaded with its members on the Canberra to come out on strike. As the Canberra is a P and O liner, one would have thought that the union would have been successful. Even two coachloads of pickets at the entrance to Southampton docks were prevented from succeeding by a heavy police reinforcement. I do not think that the NUS is obeying the legislation when it brings two coachloads of pickets from another area to prevent a ship sailing from the port of Southampton. It is breaking the law.
The NUS does not seem to mind any more. It has had its money sequestered; it has been shut out of its offices; two Opposition Members have lost their flats; and the whole thing is beginning to look rather nasty for some of its members. Nevertheless, it is still prepared to break the law—and breaking the law it is. The NUS is being found out, not only by the majority of the members of the NUS, but by the British public. Think of the hardship suffered by the British public and also the French citizens who are on holiday here.
Damage is also being caused to our export-import industry that uses the Channel ferries. Think how Opposition Members will crow in a couple of months' time when our import and export figures look distorted. They will say that it is the Government's fault. They will not realise that they need look no further than this rather unfortunate deadlock caused by the National Union of Seamen.
There was some plagiarism this afternoon by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). Hon. Members may recall that a presidential candidate in the United States had to resign because he used a speech given by the Leader of the Opposition. Either the hon. Member for Oldham. West wrote the article attributed to Mr. Sam McCluskie in The Sunday Times on Sunday or it was written by Mr. McCluskie. I heard the hon. Member for Oldham, West on television and this afternoon, and he said, almost word for word, what was contained in that article under the smiling face of Sam McCluskie. Someone has to be using plagiarism to enhance his own speeches. Will the Opposition tell us who wrote the article?
As an hon. Member representing a Southampton constituency, may I say that the difficulty is that, although we no longer have cross-Channel ferries, the National Union of Seamen has been effective enough to stop cross-Channel ferries at the port of Portsmouth. It is not only causing difficulties for visitors to islands such as Jersey and Guernsey, but also people in the transport industry in carrying out their normal trade. There are many such people in Southampton.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said that he was all for complete freedom. He would go on the picket line. He would aid and abet if he could, because

that is his way of life and he can see no other way forward, The right hon. Gentleman must realise the terrible harm that would be done if we gave a distorted view to those workers in the NUS or, indeed, to the public.

Mr. Redwood: I was sorry that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) would not take my intervention, because I wanted to clarify whether he was saying that, to further this dispute, members of the National Union of Seamen should break the law, and suggesting that judges were biased. I hope that he will withdraw that remark as it is a damaging slur on the fine tradition of neutrality of the law.

Mr. Hill: I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield went further. He said that the Government were appointing judges who would do their will and would sequestrate the funds of a union without evidence; the judges would be obedient to the Government. The right hon. Gentleman must know that that is nonsense. That is the politics of the 1930s. The right hon. Gentleman must be answered. I hope that an Opposition Member will answer him because he is getting away with a false argument.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the statement made by a judge, that the NUS must stop pussyfooting about? Does not that show clear bias?

Mr. Hill: Am I seriously being asked whether the Government told a judge to make a statement containing the word "pussyfooting"? The judge must be answerable for his own words. However, there is anxiety about the pattern followed after the sequestration of funds. Advisers of Mr. Scargill are now coming to help. A newspaper headline states:
Striking seamen divert cash to beat asset freeze.
They are trying to circumvent the law. If they think like the right hon. Gentleman, possibly they will justify it. But the law is the law, and they have broken the law. Until they purge their contempt of court and receive their funds back, they will have to stay in this position.
P and O management and the NUS will not get around the table because of straightforward commercial opposition. The law of the land is straightforward. Although the Government have the Arbitration, Conciliation and Advisory Service to bring both sides together, they will not intervene. If both sides are rigidly opposed, they must slug it out to the end. That is the only way to resolve the dispute. As long as the NUS members realise that their union officials are telling them, "Slug it out to the end, lads; we shall win", because that is the name of the game, it will be a slug to the end. However, I think that the cooler and more intelligent reasoning in the NUS—similar to that on the Canberra and QE2—will gradually prevail, and it will be realised that there must be a meeting of minds about the difficulties of 1992, the possibility of VAT, the removal of duty-free goods and the dangers of the Channel tunnel. The two sides must come together. We cannot let almost historic dinosaur-type trade union quotes decide the issue.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) made a very interesting speech, but I trust that the public will not take much notice


of it. He referred to the lack of credibility of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). The hon. Member for Dover suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and I were on the picket lines in Dover advocating violence. I was asked by a representative of my local press whether that was true, and I replied, as I cannot reply in this House, that it was a deliberate lie, and that was printed in the local press. I want to make it absolutely clear that no one has been talking about violence on the picket lines. Reference has been made to intimidation. What about the intimidation of workers in the National Union of Seamen who have been told to accept the conditions and sign, or they will be sacked? Is that not intimidation?
The hon. Member for Dover referred to those who had agreed to the conditions and said that 5,000 people had applied for jobs. I am surprised at that. With 2·5 million or 3 million people unemployed in this country, I am amazed that only 5,000 applied for the jobs. I should not have been surprised if 50,000 had applied. The level of unemployment is being used as a weapon against the trade union movement and workers who are trying to maintain decent conditions which they have negotiated over the years.

Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heffer: No, I will not give way.
The hon. Member for Dover made several other points. He was kind enough to refer to a speech that I made in the House in 1966 when the National Union of Seamen held an official strike. I recall my speech very well. My Front-Bench colleagues at the time were talking about a small group of politically motivated men running the official strike. I explained that there was another group of politically motivated men and women in No. 10 Downing street. I believed then that the NUS was right, and I have a right to say that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is aware, there was a great unofficial strike in 1960. For my sins, together with the then hon. Member for Bootle, Mr. Simon Mahon, I was asked to be a mediator by the Liverpool Trades Council and the Labour party. We were not asked to mediate between the employers and the union, because the real mediation had to take place between the rank and file of the union and the union leadership.
There was a great surge at the time among the membership. They wanted to create a new union. We said that they should not do that, but should remain in the union and fight to democratise it. They democratised it and made it one of the most democratic unions in this country. They did not need legislation to introduce ballots. They created a democratic organisation and got rid of the leadership, which I believe was in the pockets of the employers at the time. They made it one of the most democratic unions in the country, and that is what it remains.
The hon. Member for Dover referred to the blue book and the red book. I did not see the blue book, but I have seen the red one. If the red book is an improvement on the blue book, God help us. I can understand why NUS members are not prepared to accept the red book. Those who have accepted it have done so under pressure.

Mr. Benn: Pressure of dismissal.

Mr. Heffer: That is right. They are worried about their future.
Do those hon. Members who have never put their hands to any employment believe that the workers go on strike because they want to? Do they honestly believe that workers are only too happy to lose their wages and go home to their wives and say, "I am sorry, love. I am not bringing in any money at the end of the week"? Do hon. Members believe that the workers in this country are stupid?

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: No, but the hon. Gentleman is.

Mr. Heffer: I know about this because I have worked in industry and the hon. Lady has not. That is the difference.

Mrs. Gorman: Withdraw.

Mr. Heffer: No, I will not withdraw it, because it is true. I have already received abuse from the hon. Member for Dover and many others.
I watched the faces of people such as Dunlop on television. Anyone who has watched Dunlop on television knows who is backing him. He is being backed by the Government and their legislation. That is the truth of the matter.
The trade union movement and the NUS in particular at this juncture are fighting for their very existence. The trade union movement is threatened by the Government's anti-trade union legislation, which is the worst in Europe and rather like Jaruzelski's legislation in Poland. Conservative Members are brave and support the rights of Polish workers to have trade unions, but when it comes to our trade unions, it is a different story. I believe that Solidarity has a right to exist in Poland. Because I live in this country, I defend the rights of our workers to have the democratic organisation which Conservative Members do not accept and in which they cannot believe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East answered the point about the secret ballot. The NUS was prepared to have another ballot, but it was taken to court, and that stopped the ballot. Conservative Members are only too well aware of that.

Mr. Rogers: I agree with my hon. Friend that many Conservative Members are neo-Fascists—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware that that is not a parliamentary expression. Please will he withdraw it and say something else?

Mr. Rogers: I understand that to call Conservative Members Fascists is out of order. However, I understand that Mr. Speaker has ruled previously—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that he must not argue with the Chair. Will he withdraw the expression?

Mr. Rogers: For the purposes of the debate, and in pursuance of the advocacy of my colleagues, I will withdraw that expression. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is aware of the extreme political Right-wing views of Conservative Members. Does he accept that it is sickening hypocrisy for a succession of Conservative Members to claim that the Government will not intervene in the dispute because it is


a commercial issue, while the Prime Minister has on at least six occasions since January met Sir Jeffrey Sterling, the owner of P and O? Is that non-intervention?

Mr. Heffer: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I heard a Minister on the radio this morning discussing the issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I was not surprised by what the Minister said, but it was remarkable how he repeatedly stated that it was nothing to do with the Government. He said that the Government could not intervene. Previous Tory Governments, even the Heath Government—if I may use that expression—were prepared on occasion to intervene in the national interest. Instead, the Government equate the national interest with the class interest of those whom they represent. That is their national interest. It has nothing to do with any real national interest.
I support the motion. It is not the greatest motion in the world, and it does not necessarily say everything that I would want it to say, but it is important in the sense that it raises all the important issues. It should he supported even by Conservative Members. They should have sufficient interest in the future of the shipping industry to realise that they should support the motion.
I use the Channel ferries regularly when travelling from Dover to France. I use that general term because there are ports other than Calais. I am interested particularly in safety. How can the Government say that they are concerned about safety when the numbers of seamen will be reduced? If they are really concerned about the safety of passengers, they must be concerned also about crew numbers. That must follow if they are to ensure that there is genuine safety. That is the real issue, apart from the future of the National Union of Seamen.
The Government are dodging their responsibility of ensuring that there is safety for the passengers and crews of the future. They are dodging also their responsibility to the shipping industry generally and to the ferries in particular.

Mr. Loyden: My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) talked about seamen working an 18-hour day, and about rest periods. What will be the consequences for safety if seamen work an 18-hour uninterrupted shift? Will my hon. Friend spell out the implications to the House?

Mr. Heffer: I think that my hon. Friend has done that in implied terms in making that intervention. I believe that he is right.
I referred the other day to the port manager of Heysham harbour cutting a rope of the Tynwald with a chainsaw on 30 April while that vessel was berthed at Heysham. I received a written answer from a Department of Employment Minister, part of which I shall read. It states:
I have been asked to reply. No. The Merchant Shipping Act did not apply to the incident referred. On the information available neither the ship, its crew nor any person ashore were endangered by the action of the harbour master and there was no contravention of any legal requirement."—[Official Report, 9 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 22.]
I also received a letter from Sea Containers, which was written by none other than the public affairs manager. I shall not quote the entire letter, which I would describe as a whitewash. Part of it reads:
The Tynwald was secured by six ropes (three at each end of the ship). There are two head ropes, two stern ropes and two spring ropes (one at the forehead and one aft).

Incidentally, I was being told to suck eggs, because one knows about these matters after working on a line of docks for a long time. The letter continues:
The port master cut the forehead spring rope and was proceeding to cut the head rope when the ship's master instructed him to stop. The third rope also went slack and then the other ropes were released. The ship moved from one berth to another under its own power and thus this became a normal manoeuvre from berth to berth.
So a normal manoeuvre involves the cutting of ropes. I have never heard anything like it. The Government are not prepared to take action against an illegal act. Their response shows that they consider themselves to be above the law. However, when the NUS takes legitimate action and organises secondary pickets, it is made clear that it is not above the law. That proves our case and makes it clear where the Government stand.

Mr. Robert Hughes: This has been a debate of some passion. That is understandable because we are dealing with issues of great concern to hon. Members and to those whom we represent. I urge Conservative Members to buy a copy of the tape recording of these proceedings. They should listen to themselves chanting in unison with the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). If they do that, they will hear echoes of Nuremberg and they will be ashamed of themselves.
It is regrettable that the Secretary of State for Employment said that he would say nothing new. Unfortunately, that was true. More is the pity. He should have said something new.
There is no doubt that the genesis of the dispute lies in the Channel tunnel. We have all known from the beginning that there would be difficulties. We argued that there should be proper arrangements for the ferries, including competition checks. The Government told us that everything would be sorted out if the issue were left to market forces. That is why we are landed in this mess.
There has been great apprehension in the ferry fleets, and most of it has been stoked up by the owners. They have emphasised the dangers facing the ferries, the number of jobs that will have to go and the problems that will be faced. The apprehension has been fostered by the owners. The NUS understands that changes will be required. There is a general agreement that jobs will have to go, but it is with great reluctance that that has been acceped by the union. We have a dispute because P and O has insisted repeatedly that the changes must take place by March. This has precluded any proper period of phasing.
An emotionally charged issue in an emotionally charged area has been made all the more difficult by the fact that Sealink stepped in and said that, if P and O got its way, it, Sealink, would develop the same conditions. That was a secondary threat. It is not for us to take lessons from Conservative Members on secondary action when threats are being made by other ferry owners.
The problem is compounded by the difficulties that are created by industrial relations legislation. The law has not helped in any sense to stabilise matters. If the parties to an industrial dispute find themselves in the legal arena, there is no sensible way out of it. The Government do not understand solidarity action within trade unions. They do not understand the loyalty of members to their unions. The Government live in ignorance of the fact that


industrial disputes have their own momentum and dynamism. They refuse to recognise that what is required of them is some form of conciliation and arbitration.
There are those who take a charitable view of the Secretary of State for Employment and say that he would like to be tempted by the forbidden fruit of conciliation but he is afraid to let that happen in case he succeeds, finds that conciliation works and gets a taste for it. He knows that if that happened he would be taken to No. 10 Downing street and sent on a long march to purgatory, either to Northern Ireland or to the loneliness of the Government Back Benches. That is the problem.
There are less charitable people, some of whom are realists. I am one of those realists, and I believe that conciliation is anathema to the Government. They think that the right to manage means that might is right. Their view is that, no matter who is harmed in the process and irrespective of the damage that is done to the nation, industrial disputes must be resolved by a trial of strength. In ordinary circumstances, that would be bad enough, but in this instance the Secretary of State should surely have a restraining influence on the Secretary of State for Employment. His constant theme over the past 14 months—ever since the Zeebrugge disaster—is that safety is paramount. We have been told that safety comes first.
It is a disgrace that, whenever safety has been mentioned this evening, Conservative Members have sniggered or laughed. They did not laugh and snigger 14 months ago when tributes were being paid to seamen for saving lives in the Zeebrugge disaster. They did not laugh and snigger when seamen gave of their best in the Falklands dispute. All of that has been forgotten. Conservative Members did not laugh and snigger either when the "Brass Tacks" programme was mentioned. I concede to the Secretary of State that he has written to me to say that there will be a rigorous inquiry. I hope that it will concentrate on safety. Nowhere in the P and O proposals is there any assessment of the safety aspects of the new crewing proposals. That is not to be found in the red book, in the blue book, or anywhere else.
Nor has there been any assessment of the consequences of fatigue in respect of reaction time. In 1982 the Department of Transport was concerned about fatigue among watch keepers and said that it would study the subject. But nothing has happened since 1982, apart from pious words. Are our memories so short? Have our memories of Zeebrugge been dulled by other disasters? Have our recollections been blunted by the fact that Zeebrugge was followed by the King's Cross disaster, as is suggested in the newspapers today? How can the Secretary of State for Transport be sure that the safety conditions are so good that he can put his name to the Government amendment?
The Secretary of State might do well to look back on his pious words of the day after the King's Cross disaster, and to his complacent remarks about how safety was paramount in London Transport. However, if he reads the inquiry evidence, he will learn that safety conditions were not as he described them to be. In the light of that evidence, the Minister should be more careful about dismissing safety and the dangers of fatigue among seamen.
The Secretary of State must bear in mind that this is not the end of the story, whatever may happen in respect of the P and O dispute. What we are afraid of, and what we cannot afford, is a job auction among ferry operators in the North sea. P and O say that one of the main reasons why it wants to alter crewing conditions is that that will double the company's profits. What will happen in two years? The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) gave the game away. He said that at least the deal was available for two years. What will happen after that if P and O and Sealink, as well as other operators, discover that their profits are not as large as they once thought? Will crew members be reduced yet again? Will even longer working hours be imposed on the grounds that it is only efficiency and profit that matter? If the Secretary of State believes that that is the way to deal with matters, he is living in a fool's paradise.
The greatest irony of all is that the ports are being blocked not by the National Union of Seamen or by the Transport and General Workers Union but by freelance truck drivers. They are all friends of Mrs. Thatcher, saying that they do not support the NUS and that they are not in favour of strikes. They say also that they want the dispute to be settled. Had those freelance truck drivers been union members, Ron Todd would have been in court today and the TGWU would have had its funds sequestered. What will the Government do about those lorry drivers? I ask the Secretary of State that question, but he remains silent because he does not know the answer.
If those truck drivers had been TGWU members, practically every newspaper would have carried banner headlines about hooliganism and intimidation. Instead of that—I do not want to overdraw the case—it seems that they are being held up as heroes. The industrial relations law has no relevance or meaning in respect of the way in which those lorry drivers choose to deal with the situation, and we do not know how the Government intend to react.
The lorry drivers are clearly saying that they want negotiations restarted and the dispute settled by discussion and negotiation. That is a common refrain among both lorry drivers and the National Union of Seamen. It is a common refrain even among P and O shareholders. They are also saying that negotiations should be restarted or that the dispute should be sent to arbitration. Everyone is willing to go to arbitration, and certainly the NUS is willing. The only people who appear to be standing back are Sir Jeffrey Sterling and the Government. All the voices that have been raised in this matter and all the newspaper articles are saying that they want the matter to be settled by negotiation. It is true that ACAS has been in touch from time to time during the past 14 weeks. However, there is a significant difference between an ACAS that is working with the enthusiastic support of the Government and an ACAS that is working in the face of sustained Government hostility to conciliation. The dispute could be quickly resolved if only the Government would have the sense to deal with it by conciliation.
Is there anyone in the Cabinet who has the vision and the courage to understand what is happening? Is there anyone in the Cabinet who remembers our debt to the seafarers of the Falklands and Zeebrugge? Is there anyone in the Cabinet with the courage to stand for justice and who appreciates that the dispute can be resolved if only they had the vision to intervene? I hope that someone will be prepared to take up that challenge. If no one in the Cabinet is prepared to do so, I ask the House to take up


that challenge. I ask the House to vote for our motion so that the dispute may be settled in the best possible way, which is by reconciliation and conciliation to the benefit of all those involved, including the seamen and the people of Dover. The House will do a great service to the nation if it passes our motion.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I can start by telling the House some good news, which is pleasing—and it will be particularly pleasing to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). The information that I have just been given is that National Union of Seamen members employed on oil rig supply ships will be instructed by their union tomorrow to return to work. I am told that that undertaking was made at Edinburgh quarter sessions today. That is one dispute which will be out of the way, and I hope that it is a precedent for other disputes. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), the seamen's dispute is with P and O European Ferries and not with other people.
In the short time available to me I shall concentrate on the issue that has dominated practically every speech from both sides of the House, safety, for which I have direct responsibility. Those who are worried about the safety of the present P and O service have voiced three main anxieties. They say that crew numbers are being reduced to unacceptable levels; that untrained crews are being employed; and that crews are being asked to work unreasonably long hours. I can reassure the House on all three points.
The revised crew complement, including officers, for the two ships presently sailing—the Pride of Bruges and the Pride of Kent—complies with all the statutory manning level requirements. Those deal with the numbers and qualifications of officers to be carried on a ship. They specify also the number of crew members to be on board who have to be certificated as proficient in the operation and use of survival craft. They require the owner to ensure that there are sufficient qualified ratings to permit the master and chief engineer to organise the watch keeping arrangement with proper regard to the need for rest periods.
The revised complement meets all those statutory requirements. P and O has sought and obtained from my Department a safe manning certificate that specifies the minimum number of officers and ratings considered necessary for the safe running of the ship. The revised complement complies with the terms of the certificate.
The safe manning of a ship is not just a matter of having the correct number of crew on board; it is also a question of deploying them effectively. That is the crucial point. Therefore, a reduction in manning levels does not lead to a reduction in safety standards. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) reminded the House on Monday that the NUS itself is not opposed to P and O's proposals on reduced manning levels. The disagreement between the company and the union relates to the timetable for achieving those reductions. The union is prepared, over a period of years, to accept reductions. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either the revised crewing arrangements are safe or they are not. If they are safe, as my Department is satisfied that they are, they can be introduced. Delay may be attractive to the

NUS for many reasons, but safety is not one of them. If the ships will be safe in three years' time, one cannot argue that safety is the cause of the present dispute.
It has been suggested that untrained crews are being employed. The vessels have the proper complement of qualified officers on board and the requisite number of certificated seafarers, so the suggestion that crews are untrained is wrong. Many crew members have experience in ferries; others are new recruits to P and O but are experienced seafarers.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West criticised the work of my surveyors over the past few days. They have made a comprehensive inspection of each ship and have watched each crew implementing the revised emergency procedures and safety drills: the muster drills, the fire-fighting procedures and the lifeboat drills. The inspections were made and the drills were witnessed before the ships left their lay-up berths in Rotterdam, and the drills were witnessed again when the crews were changed at Dover. On each occasion, my surveyors were satisfied that the requisite numbers of qualified personnel were on board and that they were properly trained in all the relevant procedures. If and when further P and O ships are brought back into service, the same rigorous inspections will be made, so that that form of scaremongering is wholly irresponsible.
I can assure the House that the letter and spirit of the law were complied with; and I can also assure the House that the crews of these ships have proved to my surveyors that they are able to put their training into practice if ever the need should unfortunately arise.
The last anxiety about safety relates to the length of hours worked. As I understand it, the length of shifts worked under the new manning arrangements being introduced by P and O are as follows. Ratings on ferries to Calais work 12-hour shifts. Ratings on ferries to Zeebrugge and Boulogne are on board ship for 24-hour shifts. That, as my hon. Friends have said, is a pattern already in use on cross-Channel ferries on a number of routes. Such ratings usually have 14 hours on duty and 10 hours off. Officers work 12-hour shifts, as they have done for many years.
My surveyors are fully satisfied—this point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw)—that the crewing arrangements permit watch keeping duties to be undertaken without risk of fatigue. Perhaps before finishing with this subject I should remind the House that P and O seafarers spend 24 hours on ship for 122 days a year. They are present at their place of work for the equivalent of two and a half days a week; and they are actually on duty for the equivalent of fewer than one and a half days a week. I leave it to the House to decide whether these arrangements are excessively fatiguing.

Mr. Prescott: They are not true.

Mr. Channon: They are indeed true.
Before leaving the issue of safety, I turn to the references made to "Brass Tacks" and to other criticisms of ferry safety. I wrote to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North about them a few days ago. A former employee of P and O alleged that one of its vessels sailed last August with a deck crew of 11, against a complement of 17. That allegation is now being fully investigated. I cannot yet say whether it is true or whether any offence has been committed. If an offence has been committed, appropriate


action will be taken. It is very unfortunate that such an allegation was not made until nine months after the event. The criticisms are serious ones. If they are true, why were they not made earlier? Why were they made in the middle of an industrial dispute rather than a few days after the alleged event? However, the delay will not prevent us from establishing the facts of the matter. They will be fully investigated and I can assure the House that appropriate action will be taken.
The blockade by the lorry drivers is a serious source of disruption, although I hope that the talks today will bring a breakthrough. I can well understand the frustration of the lorry drivers, which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh pointed out. None of us can condone the form that their action has taken. The drivers have made their point. Their action is not helping to resolve the dispute; they are causing an obstruction; and they have been warned by Dover harbour board that legal action is possible.
Above all, truckers, seafarers and all involved in the dispute should reflect on the long-term implications of their actions. The Channel tunnel will be completed in 1993. If transport by road and ferry is to compete with the tunnel, it will have to do so on price and reliability. Do hon. Members imagine that the events of the past few weeks have enhanced the reputation of the ferries or the likelihood of their being able to compete effectively with the Channel tunnel? The House must judge the wisdom of these actions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh said, it is doubtful whether a debate in the House during a delicate industrial dispute such as this will help.
Opposition Members stated a number of things over and over again in the debate—especially the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). It will be utterly clear to anyone who has heard the debate or who reads reports of it that the Labour party has in no way shaken off its anachronistic view of the British economy. We are no longer living in the subsidised 1970s; we are living in the efficient 1980s. Competitiveness and efficiency count now. These, together with safety, are the features that are required if a public service is to function effectively. No one should be under any illusion about the attitude of the Labour party in the debate. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—we have heard all the Opposition leadership candidates today—has said:
The whole history of the Labour movement emphasises the need to ally politically with industrial action".
The most alarming feature of the debate has been the irresponsible behaviour of the Opposition. Regular appearances on the picket lines and inflammatory speeches this evening have been their contribution. Do they think that all this will help to achieve a speedily negotiated settlement of the dispute? The right hon. Member for Chesterfield was honest enough not to pretend that the debate would make any difference—he said it would not—and that what happened outside the House was what mattered. However, if anyone is influenced by what we say in the House tonight, I urge hon. Members to face up to their responsibilities when advising people outside the House. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield may not become the leader of the Labour party, but it is clear that his ideas are still prevalent within it on issues of this sort.
This strike and the attitude of the Labour party are living proof that these attitudes have not yet died. As my

hon. Friend the Member for Dover pointed out, in the past few weeks at Dover there have been 103 reports of intimidation and 17 arrests. In this debate, not one member of the Labour party criticised that intimidation or suggested that the unions should obey the law. Not one of them believes in the rule of law. Do not the Opposition recognise that people have the right to work without fear or intimidation? The Labour party puts the right to strike above the right to work. It appears that Opposition Members do not believe in the rule of law when it does not suit them. They blame the judges, or anyone else.
The Labour party should stop fuelling the dispute with promises of solidarity or of a special strike fund. The time has come for Opposition Members to use their influence with the NUS to tell it to respect the laws of the land. Why do they not condemn secondary picketing and law breakers? Why do they not condemn the continuation of outdated working practices that cost the nation and workers dear? The Labour party is acting against the interests of those it pretends to represent. I ask the House to reject this ridiculous motion so that we may get a sensible result to the dispute—not one motivated by the outdated ideological ideas of the Labour party, which have been shown so clearly in the debate.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 317.

Division No. 298]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cunningham, Dr John


Allen, Graham
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Donald
Darling, Alistair


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dewar, Donald


Barron, Kevin
Dixon, Don


Battle, John
Dobson, Frank


Beckett, Margaret
Doran, Frank


Bell, Stuart
Douglas, Dick


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Eadie, Alexander


Bermingham, Gerald
Eastham, Ken


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Blair, Tony
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Boateng, Paul
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Faulds, Andrew


Bradley, Keith
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Buchan, Norman
Foster, Derek


Buckley, George J.
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Richard
Fraser, John


Callaghan, Jim
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Galloway, George


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
George, Bruce


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clay, Bob
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gordon, Mildred


Cohen, Harry
Gould, Bryan


Coleman, Donald
Graham, Thomas


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cousins, Jim
Grocott, Bruce


Cox, Tom
Hardy, Peter


Crowther, Stan
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cryer, Bob
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cummings, John
Haynes, Frank




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Allason, Rupert
Bellingham, Henry


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bendall, Vivian


Amess, David
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Amos, Alan
Benyon, W.


Arbuthnot, James
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Aspinwall, Jack
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkins, Robert
Body, Sir Richard


Atkinson, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Boswell, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bottomley, Peter


Baldry, Tony
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Heffer, Eric S.
O'Neill, Martin


Henderson, Doug
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hinchliffe, David
Parry, Robert


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Patchett, Terry


Holland, Stuart
Pendry, Tom


Home Robertson, John
Pike, Peter L.


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Prescott, John


Hoyle, Doug
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Redmond, Martin


Illsley, Eric
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Ingram, Adam
Reid, Dr John


Janner, Greville
Richardson, Jo


John, Brynmor
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Robertson, George


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rogers, Allan


Lambie, David
Rooker, Jeff


Lamond, James
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, Ted


Leighton, Ron
Ruddock, Joan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Salmond, Alex


Lewis, Terry
Sedgemore, Brian


Litherland, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


McAllion, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


McFall, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Snape, Peter


McKelvey, William
Soley, Clive


McLeish, Henry
Spearing, Nigel


McTaggart, Bob
Stott, Roger


McWilliam, John
Strang, Gavin


Madden, Max
Straw, Jack


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marek, Dr John
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Turner, Dennis


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wall, Pat


Martlew, Eric
Walley, Joan


Maxton, John
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Meacher, Michael
Wareing, Robert N.


Meale, Alan
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wigley, Dafydd


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Morgan, Rhodri
Winnick, David


Morley. Elliott
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Mullin, Chris
Tellers for the Ayes:


Murphy, Paul
Mr. Alun Michael and


Nellist, Dave
Mrs. Llin Golding.


O'Brien, William

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grist, Ian


Bowis, John
Ground, Patrick


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Grylls, Michael


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brazier, Julian
Hannam, John


Bright, Graham
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Harris, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Haselhurst, Alan


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hawkins, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hayes, Jerry


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Burt, Alistair
Hayward, Robert


Butcher, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butler, Chris
Heddle, John


Butterfill, John
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, James


Carttiss, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Cartwright, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cash, William
Holt, Richard


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hordern, Sir Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Churchill, Mr
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Colvin, Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Irving, Charles


Cope, John
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Janman, Tim


Couchman, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cran, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, David
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Key, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kilfedder, James


Day, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Devlin, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dicks, Terry
Knapman, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dover, Den
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dunn, Bob
Knowles, Michael


Durant, Tony
Knox, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Latham, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Farr, Sir John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lee, John (Pendle)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forman, Nigel
Lightbown, David


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Franks, Cecil
Lord, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
McCrindle, Robert


Fry, Peter
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gardiner, George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Madel, David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Malins, Humfrey


Goodlad, Alastair
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maples, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Gorst, John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gow, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mates, Michael


Gregory, Conal
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Mellor, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Speller, Tony


Miller, Hal
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mills, Iain
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Miscampbell, Norman
Squire, Robin


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Moate, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stern, Michael


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stevens, Lewis


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Moss, Malcolm
Stokes, John


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mudd, David
Sumberg, David


Neale, Gerrard
Summerson, Hugo


Nelson, Anthony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thorne, Neil


Page, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Paice, James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Patnick, Irvine
Tracey, Richard


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Tredinnick, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Trippier, David


Pawsey, James
Trotter, Neville


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Porter, David (Waveney)
Viggers, Peter


Portillo, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Price, Sir David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Raffan, Keith
Waldegrave, Hon William


Redwood, John
Walden, George


Renton, Tim
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Rhodes James, Robert
Waller, Gary


Riddick, Graham
Walters, Dennis


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Warren, Kenneth


Roe, Mrs Marion
Watts, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wells, Bowen


Rost, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Rowe, Andrew
Widdecombe, Ann


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wiggin, Jerry


Ryder, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wilshire, David


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sayeed, Jonathan
Winterton, Nicholas


Scott, Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Woodcock, Mike


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Yeo, Tim


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Shersby, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Sims, Roger
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 217.

Division No. 299]
[7.12 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Amos, Alan


Alexander, Richard
Arbuthnot, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Allason, Rupert
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Aspinwall, Jack


Amess, David
Atkins, Robert




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barron, Kevin


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Battle, John


Allen, Graham
Beckett, Margaret


Alton, David
Beith, A. J.


Anderson, Donald
Bell, Stuart


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bermingham, Gerald


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Bidwell, Sydney

Atkinson, David
Franks, Cecil


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Freeman, Roger


Baldry, Tony
French, Douglas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fry, Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Gardiner, George


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gill, Christopher


Bellingham, Henry
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bendall, Vivian
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Goodlad, Alastair


Benyon, W.
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gorst, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gow, Ian


Body, Sir Richard
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boswell, Tim
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grist, Ian


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Ground, Patrick


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grylls, Michael


Bowis, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hampson, Dr Keith


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hannam, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brazier, Julian
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bright, Graham
Harris, David


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Haselhurst, Alan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hawkins, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayes, Jerry


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hayward, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Burt, Alistair
Heddle, John


Butcher, John
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Butler, Chris
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butterfill, John
Hill, James


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carrington, Matthew
Holt, Richard


Carttiss, Michael
Howard, Michael


Cash, William
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Chope, Christopher
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Churchill, Mr
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Irvine, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Irving, Charles


Conway, Derek
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Janman, Tim


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cope, John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cormack, Patrick
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cran, James
Key, Robert


Critchley, Julian
Kilfedder, James


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Curry, David
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knowles, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Knox, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dunn, Bob
Latham, Michael


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fallon, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Farr, Sir John
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lightbown, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Peter


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus
Macfarlane, Sir Neil

McLoughlin, Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sims, Roger


Madel, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Malins, Humfrey
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mans, Keith
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maples, John
Speller, Tony


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Mellor, David
Stern, Michael


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stevens, Lewis


Miller, Hal
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mills, Iain
Stokes, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Summerson, Hugo


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mudd, David
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Neale, Gerrard
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Neubert, Michael
Thorne, Neil


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tracey, Richard


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Tredinnick, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trippier, David


Page, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Paice, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patnick, Irvine
Viggers, Peter


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Pawsey, James
Waldegrave, Hon William


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walden, George


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waller, Gary


Portillo, Michael
Walters, Dennis


Price, Sir David
Ward, John


Raffan, Keith
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Redwood, John
Warren, Kenneth


Renton, Tim
Watts, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wells, Bowen


Riddick, Graham
Whitney, Ray


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wiggin, Jerry


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wilkinson, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wilshire, David


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rost, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Rowe, Andrew
Wolfson, Mark


Ryder, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Hon Tom
Woodcock, Mike


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Yeo, Tim


Sayeed, Jonathan
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Scott, Nicholas
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shaw, David (Dover)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Blair, Tony
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Boateng, Paul
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Boyes, Roland
Howells, Geraint


Bradley, Keith
Hoyle, Doug


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Buckley, George J.
Illsley, Eric


Caborn, Richard
Ingram, Adam


Callaghan, Jim
Janner, Greville


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
John, Brynmor


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kennedy, Charles


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kirkwood, Archy


Clay, Bob
Lambie, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lamond, James


Cohen, Harry
Leadbitter, Ted


Coleman, Donald
Leighton, Ron


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lewis, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Litherland, Robert


Cousins, Jim
Livsey, Richard


Cox, Tom
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Crowther, Stan
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cryer, Bob
Loyden, Eddie


Cummings, John
McAllion, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunningham, Dr John
Macdonald, Calum A.


Dalyell, Tam
McFall, John


Darling, Alistair
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McKelvey, William


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Maclennan, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McTaggart, Bob


Dewar, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dixon, Don
Madden, Max


Doran, Frank
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Douglas, Dick
Marek, Dr John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Eadie, Alexander
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Eastham, Ken
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Martlew, Eric


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Maxton, John


Fatchett, Derek
Meacher, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Meale, Alan


Fearn, Ronald
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fisher, Mark
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Flynn, Paul
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foster, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Foulkes, George
Morley, Elliott


Fraser, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Galloway, George
Mullin, Chris


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Murphy, Paul


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Nellist, Dave


George, Bruce
O'Brien, William


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Neill, Martin


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gordon, Mildred
Parry, Robert


Gould, Bryan
Patchett, Terry


Graham, Thomas
Pendry, Tom


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Pike, Peter L.


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Prescott, John


Grocott, Bruce
Primarolo, Dawn


Hardy, Peter
Quin, Ms Joyce


Harman, Ms Harriet
Radice, Giles


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Randall, Stuart


Haynes, Frank
Redmond, Martin


Heffer, Eric S.
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Henderson, Doug
Reid, Dr John


Hinchliffe, David
Richardson, Jo


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Holland, Stuart
Robertson, George


Home Robertson, John
Robinson, Geoffrey

Rogers, Allan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rooker, Jeff
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dennis


Ruddock, Joan
Wall, Pat


Salmond, Alex
Wallace, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Walley, Joan


Sheerman, Barry
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wareing, Robert N.


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Skinner, Dennis
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Snape, Peter
Winnick, David


Soley, Clive
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Spearing, Nigel
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Steel, Rt Hon David


Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Alun Michael and


Straw, Jack
Mrs. Llin Golding.


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, noting that Government policies have established a sound and stable legal framework for the conduct of industrial relations which has significantly reduced the incidence and impact of disputes; that the National Union of Seamen has rejected various proposals for resolving this dispute; that stringent safety inspections have been carried out by Department of Transport surveyors on the P &amp; O ferries 'Pride of Bruges' and 'Pride of Kent', covering not only the vessels themselves and their equipment, but also the manning arrangements and the training of the crew; believes that the resolution of industrial disputes must be a matter for the parties concerned operating within the law and within their economic circumstances; and condemns acts of intimidation and unlawful secondary action designed to resolve industrial disputes by means outside the law.'.

Points of Order

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. By way of a written question to the Minister of State, Home Office I raised questions concerning the number of qualified and non-qualified persons employed over various dates in the magistrates courts in each of the petty sessional divisions of England and Wales. Tonight I received, dated 11 May, what might be called an advance copy of the response, on which I had a holding answer on 21 April which merely states:
I have today written to the hon. Member and a copy of the reply has been placed in the Library.
When one asks za parliamentary question, the object of the exercise is for not only the hon. Member but the public to find out what the situation is. The general public does not have access to the Library of the House of Commons, but over the past few years I have noticed that this practice has grown. If Members of Parliament are to do their job properly, it is only right and proper that the question should appear in Hansard. Therefore, I raise this issue as a matter of principle.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that anything out of order has occurred. I understand that that is done regularly, particularly when lengthy documents are involved.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it concern the next Bill? I think that we should get on to the Bill.

Mr. Cryer: It concerns the previous debate, Mr. Speaker. When you, Mr. Speaker, were not in the Chair, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), on a point of order, suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), in an intervention, had omitted to make a declaration that he was receiving an advantage from the NUS. You, Mr. Speaker, will know that it was uncalled for, untrue and dishonest of the hon. Member for Amber Valley to make that suggestion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is not, in the words of the hon. Member for Amber Valley, in receipt of any grace-and-favour advantage from the NUS. The flat in which he has been staying for some time has had a fair rent fixed under the legislation for 14 years. In any event, during the dispute my hon. Friend has not been living in that flat. The hon. Member for Amber Valley suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has been less than forthright about this issue. That is patently untrue and casts doubts on a Member of this House. When doubt of that kind is cast, it is usual for the hon. Member who has cast that doubt to withdraw his comment. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to require the hon. Member for Amber Valley to withdraw the uncalled-for and disreputable aspersion that he has cast on my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is big enough to look after himself, but it would be worth while to look tomorrow at the exchanges in Hansard and at the disgraceful allegation by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), who used the phrase, "a cut-price, grace-and-favour flat." Had my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) been living in a cut-price flat, which clearly he was not, he ought to have been congratulated on saving Parliament money. A Member of Parliament's rent is paid out of the London allowance and any hon. Member who is able to negotiate a cheaper rent for his flat is saving Parliament money.
The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests as having 11 directorships and consultancies, including Corporate and Public Affairs Strategy Limited. When I tabled an early-day motion during the Land Rover strike, the hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment that, word for word, was the management's case during the dispute, from which people may draw the conclusion that by means of one of his consultancies he was acting on behalf of the Land Rover management in this place.
That is OK, but then the hon. Gentleman accused my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, who has no grace-and-favour relationship with the National Union of Seamen. He is a Member sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers. He has correctly notified the House of that fact each year since the Register of Members' Interests was compiled. After looking at Hansard tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, you ought to require the hon. Member for Amber Valley to make a personal statement to the House withdrawing the allegation and personally apologising to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is always very quick to demand financial details about other hon. Members—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we ought to go into that matter now. I call the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim).

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] After an intervention earlier today by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I asked Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, whether it was in order for somebody who had not declared a possible interest—[HoN. MEMBERS: "An interest."]—an interest in the National Union of Seamen not to declare it. I stated that the hon. Member for Bolsover had lived in a flat for which he paid a grace-and-favour rent and that later I had found out that the rent was only £18.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: No.

Mr. Oppenheim: Despite the fact that I stayed in the Chamber for some time after making that point of order, the hon. Member for Bolsover chose to wait until I had left before stating that it was not a subsidised rent but that it had been fixed by the rent officer. I suggest that a rent of £18 must have been fixed a long time ago.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter on which I can adjudicate. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) referred to the rent that had previously been paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) as a cut-price rent. He also suggested that he had been failing in his duty to the House by not declaring that he was paying a subsidised rent.
It is improper for the hon. Member for Amber Valley to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover should have registered that rent in the Register of Members' Interests. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover says, it was a registered rent, there can be no question of it being a subsidised rent. At the very least, Mr. Speaker, I think that you ought to rule that if it were a registered rent, my hon. Friend should not be expected to declare such a rent in the Register of Members' Interests, otherwise any hon. Member who is paying a rent or who has a mortgage would be obliged to say how much was being paid.

Mr. Speaker: I think—

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will allow me to deal with this point, because I think I can help him. I confirm that, if the rent had been judged to be a fair rent by the rent tribunal, what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said was correct. Last week the hon. Member for Bolsover gave me the reasons why he had moved out of the flat. I am sure that the whole House will agree that the hon. Member for Bolsover is a man of high integrity. I respect the fact that he gave me that information and also the reasons that he gave me for his decision.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Michael Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members know that I am not familiar with all the procedures of the House, and on this occasion I seem to have let myself down. The Order Paper reads:
On Second Reading of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, to move, That the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months.
As a mere Back Bencher, I thought that six months meant six months. As there was an objection on 28 January, six months from 28 January would be 28 July, not 11 May. If the six months are to run from the day of the Bill's deposit, which was 27 November, that will not be until 28 May, which is a Saturday. I do not suppose that any hon. Member wants to come here on a Saturday to deal with this important business. When a period of six months is given, is it really six months, or can the Government, at their whim, set down business for consideration on any day that they desire?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The setting down of private business is the responsibility of the Chairman of Ways and Means. It is not a Government responsibility. The hon. Gentleman is drawing attention to a motion on the Order Paper, not to a decision. A motion is used as a device to prevent a Bill from being given its Second Reading without debate. The fact that we are having a debate now makes that motion entirely nugatory.

Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill in its present form does not seem to me to be acceptable, and I ask for your guidance and advice. The Government are supporting the Bill. I had been led to understand that Governments do not involve themselves with private business. A large number of people in Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and Lancashire will be affected by the Bill. The EEC turned down an application for grant-aid because the proposal would have an adverse effect on other similar installations. As the Government and many other people are involved, I suggest that this is a hybrid Bill and that it is unacceptable in its present form.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Of course, the Bill has been, as it must, before the Examiners to ensure that Standing Orders have been complied with. The Examiners reported the Bill to the House on 18 December and were satisfied that Standing Orders had been complied with. The Bill may have effects on a wide section of the community, but that is a matter for debate and a matter to be taken into account by the House when it reaches its conclusion.

Mr. Peter Hardy: On an entirely different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In fact, I have two points of order, the second having developed from the first. This morning in the post I received a statement from the promoters of the Bill. This seemed to be an act of slovenliness, giving hon. Members grossly inadequate notice. I looked at the copy of "Erskine May" in the Aye Lobby, where I found a relevant paragraph on page 890. I then consulted the appropriate officer. I also consulted the copy of "Erskine May" in the Chamber. The same


paragraph appears in the edition of "Erskine May" in the Chamber, not on page 890, but on page 969. I also discovered that there was no copy of "Erskine May" in the No Lobby. That is one point of order.
The second point of order arises from the paragraph in "Erskine May" which says:
If any stage of a bill is proceeded with when the notice has not been duly given, or the proper interval allowed,"—
I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to pay particular attention to the next words—
or if notice is taken of any other formality, the proceeding will be null and void, and the stage must be repeated.
I accept that custom and practice weigh heavily in determining the decisions of the House, but I suggest that the custom and practice of promoters of private Bills in not giving Members adequate time to study their statement justifies our suggesting to the Government that they ought not to proceed with the Bill, particularly as hon. Members received the statement from the promoters only this morning.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the statement which is often sent by promoters and their agents is purely a courtesy matter. There is no obligation in Standing Orders for them to do so.
As to the difference in various editions of "Erskine May", the hon. Gentleman is a sophisticated and, if I may say so without seeming to flatter him, learned Member. I am sure that he will make the appropriate moves to ensure that in future the "Erskine May" editions are consistent wherever they are available to hon. Members.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that some two years ago the House ran into considerable difficulty with a private Bill dealing with the Felixstowe Dock and Harbour Board. That Bill divided the House on party political lines. Because of difficulties when the Bill went into Committee, a special Committee was set up to examine the procedure on private Bills.
Would it not be more appropriate for the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill to be delayed until that Committee has completed its deliberations? There is a grave danger that we are starting on another Bill which will involve almost all the same problems as the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. The Government seem to be sympathetic to this Bill because they have sandwiched it between two pieces of business on which there is a three-line Whip. The Government seem to be treating it as another Government Bill in the guise of private business.
We will have difficulty when we look for four hon. Members to sit in Committee in a semi-judicial role. The whole private Bill procedure is being brought into disrepute. The matter was rehearsed on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. There was a consensus in the House that a special Committee should be set up to examine the procedure. Therefore, it would be better to delay further consideration of this Bill until the report of the Committee is received and acted on, or we may have a rerun of the procedural difficulties on the earlier legislation.
I should have thought that even the promoters would want to avoid the difficulties and the expense that might be incurred. My hon. Friends would no doubt prefer to

debate the merits of the Bill as a Government measure, going through the public Bill procedure, rather than using the difficult and arcane procedure for a private Bill.

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not disregarding the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), but the point of order which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) wishes to raise may also be relevant.

Mr. Dobson: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is closely related to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). The House, together with the House of Lords, established a Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure because of dissatisfaction with various aspects of the existing procedure, but in particular with Bills such as the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill which seek to obtain planning permission from Parliament rather than follow the usual procedure which more humble citizens have to follow of seeking consent from the local planning authority.
I understand that the Joint Committee has completed, or is about to complete, the taking of evidence and will report shortly. In the circumstances, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you might be prepared to postpone consideration of Bills through which promoters seek planning permission from us rather than from a local authority. To allow such Bills, including this one, to proceed is likely to bring the House into even more disrepute than the disrepute which rightly poured in on us because of the general conduct and the proceedings on the infamous Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, which led to the setting up of the Joint Committee.
The evidence that has been presented to the Joint Committee in this parliamentary Session is not available to hon. Members, but the 1986–87 Joint Committee, which unanimously recommended that in this Session of Parliament we should establish a new Joint Committee to consider the matter further, received evidence from such organisations as the Ramblers Association, the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Open Spaces Society, all of whom argued that promoters of private Bills should in future be required to obtain planning permission from their local authority before coming to the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman knows that we cannot now go over all the matters which we hope the Joint Committee will examine. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to a point of order with which I can deal.

Mr. Dobson: Even at this late stage, although the Bill is set down for consideration now, as it raises all the issues which caused so much concern before and which seem likely—so I am told—to result in a unanimous recommendation from the Joint Committee that planning permissions by Parliament shall not be permitted in future by way of private Bills, and as there is an abundance of other private Bills which do not seek planning permission, I ask whether you would be prepared to abandon the


business tonight. It is premature for us to consider it, and it would be ridiculous and damaging for us to go through with it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that I have neither the authority nor the power to do what they propose. The matters which they have raised can be taken into account in debate. Both hon. Gentlemen seem to be anticipating a debate upon which we have not yet embarked, and equally anticipating its outcome. It might be sensible to await the outcome.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for drawing attention to the fact that the Joint Committee has been sitting and has, I understand, been doing excellent work. I hope that it will soon be in a position to make recommendations. In the meantime, any right hon. or hon. Member who has proposals to make to the Joint Committee should do so before it completes its deliberations.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because of your special position in this matter, would it be true to say that the Committee will change this archaic procedure if representations are made privately—that is right and proper, as you say—and if, at times such as these, representations are seen to be made by hon. Members on both sides of the House? The Government have been able to use this system of private Bills for what could be public Bills in a fashion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I alone accept responsibility for the setting down of private business. It is entirely my responsibility. The other business set down for the same day is a matter for the other authorities of the House. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the previous debate was on an Opposition day. The business was set down by the Opposition. We cannot now seek to replicate matters that have been considered by the Joint Committee.

Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to draw you into my point of order, but I recognise that you, as Chairman of Ways and Means, are responsible for putting the Bill on the agenda and having it considered tonight. However, putting that aside, I smell a rat. You must hear my point of order.
The Secretary of State for Energy, that silver-haired and silver-tongued gentleman who stands at the Dispatch Box when we debate energy matters, is knocking around in the precincts of the House. I know what he is here for. We have been set up. I know what the Bill means and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a Yorkshire man, know what it means. There is something going on here, and I do not like what I smell.
The Government Chief Whip is present. He does not often attend debates on private Bills. The Government are on the move and backing this Bill to push it through. They have a payroll vote tonight. They have done that before, and they are doing it again tonight—make no mistake about it.
I do not want to fall out with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply want to say that there is a rat running in this Chamber. That is what it is all about. So far as the Government are concerned, the Bill is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman a good run, but he has not come to a point of order for me. All this business of rats and smells is not the responsibility of the Chair.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have some knowledge of the matters under discussion, although not of the substance of the Bill. My hon. Friends are right to smell a rat. They also smelt a rat in connection with the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, and they were right to do so. With that Bill, the company was eventually forced to offer a champagne party in the House.
I was a member of the Committee that considered that Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you were most helpful and gave us a great deal of advice. I remember that well because I was profoundly worried about the pressure that was being put on hon. Members considering the Bill. There was no doubt that the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, which I believe was at that time paying about £60,000 a year towards—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady knows that we cannot keep running back to that Bill. She need:lot remind me about it. I shall never forget it. However, we should now be dealing with the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill.

Mrs. Clwyd: I am a member of the Joint Committee that is considering the reform of the procedure. By the summer we will have produced a report suggesting various reforms. It would, of course, be improper for me to reveal the contents of that report, and I am sure that the House would not expect me to do so. However, I do not think that I shall be stepping out of line if I say that we have taken a great deal of evidence from those who profit from the procedure and from those who are concerned about the abuse of the procedure and believe that it should more properly be the substance of a planning inquiry and not be brought in through the back door, as so often happens.
You will remember that Disraeli perhaps I should say that you will not remember—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With respect, I do not see how Disraeli can be brought into a point of order.

Mr. Barry Porter: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we should let the hon. Lady conclude her point of order.

Mrs. Clwyd: As I said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would not want to reveal the contents of the report to Parliament, but there is no doubt that many people are worried about the misuse of the present procedure. In 1841 Disraeli said that the procedure should be reformed. It has taken almost 150 years.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady knows better than anyone in the House that we have set up machinery to do precisely what she is urging should be done. Perhaps we should now allow another hon. Member to speak.

Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have all had a little fun, but Opposition Member's tactics are clear. Is it not time to ensure that we proceed with this important debate, as it is in your power to do? Although I am always willing to listen to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), I should much


prefer to hear her views on this matter in private. Although this is amusing, there are people in the Gallery listening to the debate who wish to hear the essence of the debate and the detailed arguments, rather than the comic procedure that we have had to put up with so far.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right.

Mr. Michael Brown: Under the Transport Act 1981, the former British Transport Docks Board, which is a nationalised undertaking—

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a genuine point of order on which I seek your ruling. It is related to Member's interests.
Under Standing Order No. 120, which governs the conduct of private business, hon. Members serving in Committee on an opposed private Bill must sign a declaration that they have no personal or constituency interest in the matter. The Bill is asking us to take over in part the functions of the local planning authority.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must know that the Second Reading motion has not even been moved yet, let alone decided upon. These are matters of which the House is well aware. I think the House will ensure that the Standing Orders are complied with when, if the Bill receives a Second Reading, a Committee is set up. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman ought to defer such a point of order until it becomes relevant.

Mr. Dobson: I was referring to the procedure governing the Committee, because it is an indication that Parliament, in its wisdom, is concerned about the declaration of interests generally. We do not need a Second Reading debate to tell us—it is spelt out on the face of the Bill—that we are being asked to give planning permission. What I am asking you to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is to rule that, as Parliament requires that hon. Members must, when they talk on these matters, declare their interests publicly, in
these peculiar circumstances—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot precede every debate in the House with a rehearsal of the relevant Standing Orders and the expression of the hope that hon. Members who take part will comply with the Standing Orders. We assume that hon. Members, being honourable and intelligent, will comply with the Standing Order. Points of order become relevant when there is a breach of those Standing Orders.

Mr. Michael Brown: Although Associated British Ports is owned by a holding company—

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we have heard sufficient points of order. We have had 30 minutes of points of order and I am not prepared to take any more at this stage.

Mr. Brown: Associated British Ports has, since its privatisation, established for itself—

Mr. Bermingham: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was called at the very beginning of the time spent on points of

order. I am not prepared at this stage to take any further points of order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist in challenging my ruling.

Mr. Brown: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Since its privatisation, Associated British Ports has established an excellent record of profitability, growth and well-planned investment. I served with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on the Standing Committee which considered the Transport Bill in 1981. The 1981 Act brought Associated British Ports into existence. I remember the hon. Gentleman rightly making a lot of play of his opposition to the transfer of the old British Transport Docks Board into a private company because he felt that the change would starve ABP of investment.
I am delighted to be able to advise the hon. Gentleman that the ports of Immingham and Grimsby, which I have the pleasure to represent—in conjunction with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—have, since being in the hands of ABP, gone from strength to strength. In 1987–88, about 30·9 million tonnes of cargo passed through Immingham. The hon. Gentleman, and his colleagues who represent the Opposition on transport matters, will recall that section 9 of the Transport Act 1981 requires ABP to provide such port facilities as it thinks necessary.

Mr. Redmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I shall not give way at this stage as it is only right that I should put the arguments in favour of the Bill on the record.
Part I is formal and is in well-precedented terms. It deals with definitions and incorporates, with modifications to suit local conditions, provisions found in public Acts which are usually applied by private Acts.
Part II would empower ABP to acquire compulsorily land or rights inland to construct the proposed works, which are in part III.
Part III seeks the authority of Parliament to construct marine works. This is the central purpose of the Bill. ABP wants to construct port facilities which are perceived to be needed to cater for the continuing trend towards larger and more cost-effective vessels.

Mr. Redmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps I may set out the main purpose of part III first, as I suspect that it is on that that the hon. Gentleman will want to express a view.
Associated British Ports must provide for the new larger vessels if it is to remain competitive. Because the works are to be constructed in tidal water, Parliament's consent, as opposed to the local authority's consent, is required. Clause 8 sets out the proposed works, and clause 16 describes the proposed extension of the harbour limits at Port Talbot.
Works 1, 2, and 3 are intended to create a new facility for dry bulk cargo in the river Humber near Immingham, which is in my constituency. Work I comprises a jetty and jetty head. Work 2 is a secondary jetty designed to give additional access to the jetty head. Work 3 consists of


reclamation landwards of the jetty head to provide additional back-up land in line with the anticipated increase in use of the jetty complex.
The port of Immingham is one of the busiest and most successful in the country. It currently handles some 30·9 million tonnes of traffic each year. That very success sometimes leads to congestion in our enclosed dock system. Many of the cargoes that are presently handled in the enclosed dock could be handled more efficiently if the proposed jetty were built.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman says that there is congestion in the port and I would not dispute that. Will he confirm, however, that the Humberside Port Owners Association is not in favour of the Bill?

Mr. Brown: I am not able to confirm or deny that. The point of the work, however, is to overcome the problem of the constraint of lock gates. The purpose of the Bill is to enable larger ships which carry dry bulk cargoes to be handled without the constraints of the enclosed dock. The congestion that sometimes arises is caused by the dock gates, and a jetty would get over the problem.
The cargo that ABP anticipates could be handled are pyrites, ferrous sulphate, clay, iron ore, sand, rutile, illmenite, soda ash, petroleum coke, coal, titanium slag, grain and ferro alloys. I am aware that some hon. Members on both sides of the House are worried about the Bill, but I shall try first to express my views and those of the promoters on the technical aspects of the Bill. Some hon. Members may not have had an opportunity to consider them.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman is talking about a jetty which will be subjected to the full range of tidal movements?

Mr. Brown: Yes. That is one of the good things about the Bill. With dock gates, the tides sometimes constrain orderly working of the port. A tremendous project is proposed.
The work would provide room in the enclosed dock for a greater volume of cargoes which can be handled suitably only in dock. It would also provide a unique dry bulk facility out in the river for larger vessels. ABP advises me that it is confident that the new facilities would enable expensive trans-shipment to continental ports to be dispensed with as larger vessels could sail from foreign destinations direct to the new jetty terminal in the Humber.
Opposition Members may feel that the work might help foreign imports of which they do not approve. If the Bill is defeated, however, large bulk vessels will have to go, as they increasingly have to already, to the port of Rotterdam and break down their cargoes into much smaller boats, which would come to wharves outside the national dock labour scheme. Opposition Members know what problems that would present for traffic and villages.
Given the nature of the debate that we had earlier on the ten-minute Bill, it must surely be agreed that if there is to be investment in ports such as Hull, Grimsby and Immingham and large ports such as Liverpool, we must encourage port facilities to be concentrated where we have put the infrastructure. We do not want large cargoes going to Rotterdam, being broken down and sent to small wharfs.

Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield): I should like to clarify the hon. Gentleman's position on the Bill. According to the January-February edition of Anti-Apartheid News, the hon. Gentleman has connections with an organisation called he Office of the South African Coal Industry, which promotes imports of South African coal. According to The Times of 5 April 1988, the hon. Gentleman was part of a recent Conservative party delegation to South Africa which called for the ending of sanctions against imports of South African coal. Are those reports true? If so, who paid for the trip to South Africa? Is the hon. Gentleman actively involved in promoting the importation of South African coal? Does he get paid for so doing?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly proper question, but he should have done his homework and referred to the Register of Members' Interests. If he had done so, he would have seen that I have a nil declaration. I have no financial interests, apart from a small income from Yorkshire Television and The Guardian. I have no financial connection with any other business whatsoever.
I freely and proudly confirm that I have had the opportunity to see many bulk terminals around the world, as one would expect of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. I have seen the Richards Bay terminal near Durban, and I freely confirm that I was a guest of the Chamber of Mines in South Africa. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Register of Members' Interests, he will see that those matters are declared.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: No. I shall not give way, because I must make progress.
Work No. 4 describes a proposed quay that is intended to provide berths in the Great Ouse river at King's Lynn. This is building on success, for, although King's Lynn port is small, it is very busy and primarily handles grain, agricultural exports and timber and steel imports. It handles other traffic, including containers, cars, scrap metal, coal and coke. The new berths would enable larger ships to call at the port. At present, all the available facilities for cargo handling are located inside the enclosed docks and the size of vessel is limited by the entrance lock. It is envisaged that traffic such as grain exports and animal feed imports will use the new berth.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West): My hon. Friend is aware that last year was the best ever for the port of King's Lynn. It is a thriving, thrusting, go-ahead port. The main problem is that there are two enclosed docks, which greatly restrict the length and width of vessels that are able to enter it. The riverside quay is essential for the expansion of the port to attract the larger, wider and longer vessels. Is my hon. Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of the people who work in King's Lynn dock and the Transport and General Workers Union, which represents most of the dockers who work there, are completely behind the Bill? Is my hon. Friend aware that if some Opposition Members succeed in sabotaging the Bill, my constituents, whose jobs depend on this measure, would regard their behaviour with dismay?


Does he agree that those Opposition Members' attempts at sabotage are hypocritical and that they do not care about jobs in East Anglia and in constituencies such as mine?

Mr. Brown: I confirm that the Transport and General Workers Union has been solidly behind these proposals, which will be of much benefit to my hon. Friend's constituency. It is estimated that the proposed works will cost about £4 million and, as my hon. Friend rightly said, the additional provision is essential to the success of the King's Lynn port. I hope that Opposition hon. Gentlemen will listen to the debate and be convinced of the reasons why they should vote for the Bill. Thus far, I do not think that anything out of order has taken place.

Mrs. Llin Golding: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman. Silverdale quarry in my constituency will be gravely affected by the Bill. The hon. Gentleman persists in addressing his remarks to hon. Gentlemen. He has not once directed his remarks to me.

Mr. Brown: I apologise profusely to the hon. Lady.
As hon. Ladies and Gentlemen will be aware, part IV of the Bill—this might have been of interest to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) had she been present—relates to provisions for Port Talbot. Clause 15 sets out the various provisions relating to Port Talbot and clause 16 extends the geographical limits of the harbour. This provision is required so that the dredged approach channel may be extended, lighted, buoyed and subject to the harbour master's jurisdiction. It is intended to ensure the safety of shipping in the area.
Port Talbot tidal harbour is a specialised facility which was constructed to allow the British Steel Corporation to bring in essential raw materials at a suitable deep-water harbour, conveniently placed for the steel works at Margam and Llanwern. The intention is to deepen and lengthen the dredged channel forming the approach to the tidal harbour so that the BSC may use larger vessels, thereby leading to economies of scale to make it more competitive against foreign manufacturers. I am sure that every hon. Gentleman and hon. Lady who represents a steel-producing constituency in south Wales will join me in the Aye Lobby. This is a major beneficial provision for the steel industry in south Wales.
At present, the annual tonnage of raw materials handled at Port Talbot is 7·5 million, of which iron ore amounts to 5·6 million. The largest vessel used at present has a capacity of only 100,000 tonnes, and it is expected that the improved channel will enable the use of vessels that carry up to 150,000 tonnes.
Part V contains a standard protective provision for the Crown, which is normal in Bills of this kind. Part VI deals with all the works and, in clause 18, places a time limit of 10 years on the proposed development for the purposes of class XII of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is gabbling through a prepared brief. "Erskine May" says that printed notes are available by way of guidance for a speaker, but reading straight from notes is not permitted.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will adjust his speaking rate and debate the matter rather than gabble a prepared brief at us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In the hallowed phrase, hon. Members are allowed to refer to copious notes.

Mr. Brown: I am anxious to make progress, because I am aware that the Bill evokes a certain amount of passion among Opposition Members. I am acutely aware of the fact that many hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a responsibility on behalf of the promoters—and as the hon. Member whose constituency will benefit from the provisions of the Bill—to set out the technical matters that the Bill raises, as well as other matters that may touch on the constituencies of other hon. Members.
Clause 19 requires Associated British Ports to pay all the expenses of the promotion of the Bill and enables it to do so out of revenue. These clauses are standard provisions that are normal in a private Bill.

Mr. Redmond: rose—

Mr. Brown: I should like to press on because I have a duty to the House to make some progress.
I shall refer to those who rightly petitioned against the Bill—it was within their rights. Eleven petitions against the Bill were deposited, and they fall into two groups. The first group, which numbers five petitions, consists of companies or bodies making specific points aimed at the protection of their interests in the locality of the Immingham and King's Lynn works. Those petitioners are the Anglian Water Authority, Calor Gas Limited, Conoco Limited, Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Limited jointly with Associated Petroleum Terminals (Immingham) Limited and, finally, the British Coal Corporation. All those bodies have legal interests in installations at close proximity to the proposed works, for example, sea defence works, jetties, conveyor systems and so on. Consultations and negotiations with the petitioners are well advanced and a great deal of progress has been made with ABP. As ABP readily acknowledges that it must indemnify legitimate interests that may be adversely affected, for example, if the approach to a neighbouring berth were to suffer additional siltation, it is fully expected that, with one exception, settlement will have been reached with the petitioners by the time the Bill is considered by a Committee in the House.

Mr. Graham Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: No, because there is one petitioner that I think the hon. Gentleman would wish me to deal with, which may affect his constituency and several others in Nottinghamshire.
Protection will be given by the ABP to the Department of Energy, which owns a jetty upstream of the proposed works at Immingham. Consultations have taken place with the Health and Safety Executive to make certain that the proposed works fully meet all safety regulations that are relevant to the busy industrial area of Immingham and to the river Humber, which is Britain's busiest waterway.
I mentioned one exception to the hope of a settlement with the petitioners that I named. It concerns British Coal, which petitioned seeking protection for its neighbouring port installations and with which it is expected full


agreement will be reached for those installations. However, British Coal's petition contains, in paragraph 21, a more fundamental objection to the Bill, which is in line with the objections being made by the other group of petitioners to which I shall now refer.
I shall refer to those petitioners, if you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as political petitioners because their petitions are purely political and have nothing to do with the technical aspects of the works that I have described. [Interruption.] I do not say that in any derogatory sense. I make it clear that I fully accept that the petitioners are perfectly entitled to petition, and they have exercised their right. Those petitioners are the National Union of Mineworkers, the Union of Democratic Mineworkers—

Mr. Eric Illsley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it correct for the hon. Gentleman to refer to those petitioners as political, by which he means the Coalfield Communities Campaign and the National Union of Mineworkers, but to refer to the Transport and General Workers Union as supporting the Bill? Surely that is unfair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a legitimate point for debate, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Brown: I should like to make it absolutely clear that, when I use the word "political", I use the word with a small "p" and in no sense in a derogatory way.

Mr. Allen: If the hon. Gentleman is expressing concern about petitioners and the views of those who may object to the Bill, why has he chosen to pilot it through the House rather than go through the normal planning permission process with a full public local inquiry, so that all those whom he calls political could put a full case in public and perhaps have their view heard by a judge? A decision could be made at a proper public inquiry after all the issues had been discussed rather than the hon. Gentleman trying to sneak the matter through in this way.

Mr. Brown: I should have thought that if we were to rely on the other method by which planning permission can be given, there would be far less opportunity than there is under the private Bill procedure for Opposition Members and petitioners to make their case.
On occasions, I have objected to private Bills and I have served on a private Bill committee, and I have followed private business from the point of view of promoters and petitioners, so if the hon. Gentleman has been in the House for as long as me—I have been here for nine years now—he will realise that under that procedure there is a tremendous scope to ensure that petitions are fully heard and adjudicated on in a much fairer way, from the point of view of the petitioners, than under normal planning procedures, which might involve a local borough council or a county council. I should have thought that this was a much better way to ensure that those who object to the Bill have the opportunity to have their say.
Those are the petitions that it is difficult for Associated British Ports to meet. Hon. Members who have blocked the Second Reading of the Bill are doing so on the same ground as that stated in the second group of petitions that I listed. That is that the proposed works at Immingham and King's Lynn and, indeed, the proposed improvements to the harbour at Port Talbot, are intended for or at any

rate could be used for the importation of foreign coal. The NUM petition states flatly that, for that reason, the Bill should not be allowed to proceed.
The other political petitioners say that the Bill should not be allowed to proceed unless safeguards are inserted to prevent the consequences that they foresee. The only way in which ABP could go ahead and construct the works, and yet satisfy those petitioners, would be by binding itself never to accept any imported coal through the new works. Of course, that is not possible for any commercial body. ABP's perceived function is to provide and operate modern efficient port facilities to meet market demands and to be free to compete for all traffic, whether inward or outward bound, including coal, or any other commodity.
I stress that the proposed port facilities at Immingham are not simply for imports. Ports and port industries have two purposes: they are for exports as much as for imports. Hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen would do well to remember that it was only a short time ago, just before the mining dispute in 1984, that some 5 million tonnes of British coal were exported from the port of Immingham, perhaps from the mines in constituencies represented by Opposition Members. I remind hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen that from the 'British Coal press release just two days ago—they can take heart from it—it is clear that the present collapse in the price of world coal is unsustainable. The world price of coal is likely to rise. As a consequence of the efficiency of our mining industry, and probably in the mid-1990s, when the jetty facilities at Immingham are completed, it is likely that British Coal will be in the market for exporting, and it will need port facilities to do so. The Bill provides for those facilities.
I stress to hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen that the purpose of the Bill is to recognise that there are times when British Coal as well as British Steel has required port facilities to export its commodities. It was only a few years ago, when I represented. the steel constituency of Scunthorpe, that the BSC was concerned about imports taking away its home market. Now it is in the export business and it needs export outlets and growing port facilities.

Mr. Michael Welsh: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on an important issue. He said that the facilities would be for all sorts of imports, and he was grateful for that. If all sorts of imports can come in, is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is possible for nuclear waste to be imported, and to be dumped in our constituencies? If he is saying that, does he agree with it? I do not. I ask the hon. Gentleman: does he?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman raises a point that is of great concern to me. But I cannot imagine that many people in the United Kingdom will import nuclear waste. It is highly unlikely that many people will require the port facilities for that, but, theoretically, if someone wanted to import vast quantities of nuclear waste, he could use Immingham docks. He could use the docks without the Bill, but he might not be able to bring so much in, so I suppose that theoretically what the hon. Gentleman says is possible.
The opposition by the coal interests to the proposals contained in the Bill amounts to an attack on free trade. The coal interests are using a private Bill legitimately, but they are using it to make a political point. The conception


and execution of an energy policy for the United Kingdom is a Government matter, and Opposition Members should not use opposition to a private Bill—

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: As I understand it—this is an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to correct me and to enlighten the House—he travelled to South Africa with his expenses paid, hospitality given, and took part in discussions. Did he at any time discuss with the mining interests in South Africa the possibility of their exporting coal to this country? Did South Africa demonstrate that because of the changing situation regarding energy policies in this country there is a market for its coal? If the hon. Gentleman did take part in such a discussion, will he be precise about it? If he did not do so, will he make that clear to us?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous and senior Member of the House. I thought that he would have done his homework, examined the Register of Members' Interests and seen my declaration that I visited South Africa as a guest of the Chamber of Mines, and that my accommodation and travel expenses were provided. There is no secret about that.

Mr. Leadbitter: rose—

Mr. Brown: I now come to the other points that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) referred to. I raised the issue while I was in South Africa and he will be interested in the answer. There is a punitive export rate on the South African rand. It is not practical, across the exchanges, for the South African coal industry to export coal to this country. The hon. Gentleman should be aware also that Britain is a member of the European Community, which has imposed sanctions on South African coal. I should have thought that he would recognise the safeguards that exist. He should know, as an hon. Member with great experience of the coal industry, that the South African coal industry is flat broke. It has no investment possibilities for exporting its product.

Mr. Leadbitter: Why did the hon. Gentleman go there?

Mr. Brown: I went there because I wanted to see the export coal terminal at Richards Bay in Durban, and on behalf of those hon. Members who may one day see the coal that is produced in the mines in their constituencies being afforded the same sort of exporting coal facility at the port of Immingham. I should dearly like to see a Richards Bay at Immingham, and not one in South Africa. That is why I invite Opposition Members to consider the points that I make. [Interruption.] It is sad that instead of greeting better port facilities as an opportunity to export coal mined in the United Kingdom, the petitioners, not only shrink from this opportunity but actively and by political means, seek a protectionist policy. It is as though they have neither the will nor the ability to compete with foreign coal producers.
I voted against joining the Common Market in 1975, but I realise that in 1992, for better or worse, we shall be a member of the single European market. Products will go to the port of Rotterdam and be broken down and sent to—

Mr. Illsley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he visited a coal export terminal at Richards Bay? How does

he square that with his latest statement that the South African coal industry is flat broke and cannot export that coal? If that is the case, why does it have this export terminal?

Mr. Brown: Because it has been there for many years. Of course, their export markets are not Europe; they are the Pacific rim. I thought that the hon. Gentleman, with whom I serve on the Select Committee on Energy, would know that.

Mr. Allen: rose—

Mr. Brown: I give way for the last time.

Mr. Allen: When South Africa exports coal to nations other than Europe, is there a prohibition on that coal being traded on the spot market in Rotterdam or anywhere else and thus finding its way into British ports? If the hon. Gentleman did visit Richards Bay, why did he do so when it is an old, out-of-date, unused facility? I assumed that he would want to see a modern facility.

Mr. Brown: I visited the Richards Bay facility because it is one of the largest facilities in the world. If one represents the port of Immingham and wants to see that port thrive, one would go to that sort of facility. Whether one likes it or not, South Africa is in the coal business. South Africa is supplied by the same coal technology which supplies the mines which are represented by Opposition Members.

Mr. Allen: rose—

Mr. Brown: No, I am not going to give way any more. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and be able to make his own speech.
We have to accept that Britain will be part of a wider Europe in 1992, whether we like it or not. If we are to take advantage of that opportunity—as France will do under the Socialist President Mitterrand—we have to be better than other countries. We must ensure that there are port facilities. We must ensure that the dockers in my constituency play their part in sending British goods across to the continent and to other parts of the world. As I have explained, the powers sought by ABP are designed to meet the needs of its markets and the many customers who will use the new facilities.
If the exporters and importers of a nation which is proud of its free trade tradition are denied the use of facilities that they need because of the opposition of one vested interest, that will be a grave injustice. That is why I invite the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I offer my condolences to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). On 5 May he wrote a letter to his hon. Friends asking them to support the private Bill tonight. When he moved the Bill, there were 10 of his colleagues on the Government Benches. The number reduced to seven at one stage. The number is now up to eight, if one includes the Minister. It seems that his letter did not carry a lot of weight. I wonder what it will be like in the Lobby at 10 o'clock, if there is a Division. Will his hon. Friends respond to his three-line Whip? Below the request in his letter for supporters to attend at 10 o'clock there are three lines.
There are one or two other points in the letter that I should mention. The hon. Gentleman has been more honest with the House than he was in his letter. He said that the major part of the Bill relating to Immingham is about coal and very little else. in the letter which he sent to his right hon. and hon. Friends he said that the port could be used for the importation of coal. Of course, he knows that it will be used for coal imports. That is why British Coal is one of the 11 petitioners against the Bill. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has not put British Coal in his list of political petitioners.

Mr. Michael Brown: That is because British Coal is petitioning to protect its port interests at the terminals.

Mr. Barron: I shall be mentioning some of British Coal's interests as contained in the literature that it has been sending to hon. Members. Its interests go further than the Immingham terminal that it is using. Its interests lie in my constituency as well as in other hon. Members' constituencies. In the letter of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes there is the sentence:
In both cases, an essentially private enterprise development faces opposition from public sector vested interests.
The hon. Gentleman is saying that the Bill of the newly privatised Associated British Ports should be defended because it is a privatised port rather than for any other reason.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes referred to the petition from the National Union of Mineworkers containing the name of the president, Arthur Scargill. It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the other political petitioners such as Calor Gas and Conoco Ltd. The hon. Gentleman mentioned his visit to South Africa. He should recall that it is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests that he visited America not too long ago as a guest of Conoco. Twice during his speech the hon. Gentleman said that with regard to his visit to South Africa we should look at the Register of Members' Interests—[Interruption.]
I consulted the Register of Members' Interests this afternoon. Four Conservative Members went on that delegation to South Africa and two of them registered that fact in the Register of Members' Interests. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes did not.

Mr. Michael Brown: It is registered there.

Mr. Barron: I have looked at the register twice and the hon. Gentleman's visit is not registered there.

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman telephones the office which compiles the Register of Members' Interests, he will learn that my visit is registered. I have a copy of the entry. I do not know when the volume which the hon. Gentleman examined was published. If he telephones—and I am surprised that he did not do that this afternoon because that is what I would have done—he will receive the full details.

Mr. Barron: It is very strange that I looked in the updated version kept in the Library, not in the Vote Office, and I saw that two of his hon. Friends who accompanied him on the visit registered in time for that fact to be entered in the updated copy in the Library. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes invited Opposition Members to

look in the Register of Members' Interests. The hon. Gentleman is not registered in the register as having visited South Africa with that delegation.
It is true, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes rightly explained, that the South African Government discriminate against their own coal industry. On 5 April 1988 The Times carried an article which examined in some detail the visit made by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and his three colleagues to South Africa as the guests of the South African coal mining industry. The article states, referring to the delegation:
They also feel it should be supported in its opposition to the discriminatory legislation enforced by the South African government.
The hon. Gentleman is arguing for the South African Government to remove that discrimination which he claims prevents them from exporting coal to Britain. He went to South Africa to argue that and he came back here and argued that the South African Government should stop doing that presumably to open the gates for South African coal, without South African Government discrimination, to come into Britain.
If we pass the Bill, the consequences will be very grave for the regional and national interests. It has become obvious since the publication of the White Paper on privatising electricity that the only competition will exist through the price of coal for the generators. While the nuclear industry is cushioned, the coal industry will be challenged. The Bill is the first—unfortunately, it will riot be the last—challenge to the British coal industry in current legislation.
It is obvious that the facilities will be used for importing coal and that the effects of such imports on the demand for and supply of indigenous coal products must be heeded. It is a well-known fact that present international coal prices are well below sustainable levels in the medium to long term. Although prices have increased recently, that has been offset by the increase in sterling against the dollar. In view of that, substantial coal imports through the Humber could close a minimum of 10 million tonnes of capacity in the midlands and Yorkshire coalfields which would in future prove economic against world prices. Imports would also interfere with British Coal's current cost reduction and restructuring and that is compounded by the uncertainties arising from the Government's privatisation. There is no certainty about the terms and conditions under which British Coal will supply the newly privati;ed electricity supply industry.
It is worth noting at this stage that no industry of that scale can sustain a coherent investment programme of future market projections during all that uncertainty. Because of that, importing coal at an unsustainably low price would not only reduce British Coal's sales and output, but would permanently damage areas that have already borne the brunt of a contracting industry.

Mr. Allan McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone): Has my hon. Friend seen the report in the Sheffield and Barnsley Star which contains a report from the Financial Times business section stating that 40 potentially profitable pits will be axed by 1990 if the Government encourage coal imports?

Mr. Barron: That is right. I hope that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes will listen to these implications and will stop talking to his friends.
The report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) has referred is titled
Coal on the Market: Can British Coal Survive Privatisation?
and was produced by the Financial Times business information service last Monday. It states:
Much British deep-mined coal can compete well with imports in 1990—but by 1995 the mines should be competing so well as to restrict imports to the periphery of the power station market … By 1995 any savings made by an all-out import policy in 1990 would have disappeared and the electricity supply industry would be paying millions of pounds more for imported coal than by buying British … There is a severe risk that many deep mines which could compete with imported coal in 1995 will be closed by 1990 if the government encourage an early free-for-all on imports.
That is exactly what is happening with the Bill tonight.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Does my hon. Friend realise that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is fully aware of the facts that he has given? Like me, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has the privilege of being a member of the Select Committee on Energy and he heard expert witnesses expressing concern about the effects on the British coal mining industry arising from the privatisation of electricity and the threat of major imports of up to 30 million tonnes. That coal could not be imported without these new ports.

Mr. Barron: That is right. My hon. Friend has struck a true note. We all know what is behind the Bill.
I want to refer to the Bill's history. The Bill's promoters applied for EEC assistance under the integrated development operation programme for the region covering some of south Yorkshire and Humberside. That application was rejected because it was argued that to fund a project in one part of an area that damaged another was not within its scope and that refusal was perfectly correct as the coal mining areas of Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire will be dramatically affected by the Bill if it is carried through all its stages.
There are five coal mines in my constituency which supply between 80 per cent. and 95 per cent. of their production to one of four power stations—

Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it correct and in order for a Conservative Member to consult with members of the public who may have a vested interest in this discussion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am concerned only with what happens in the Chamber, and that is a difficult enough job without the hon. Gentleman inviting me to deal with something outside the Chamber.

Mr. Barron: The coal mines in my constituency supply coal to two generators in Yorkshire and two in Nottinghamshire. The terminal referred to in the Bill will threaten those collieries.
We are effectively being asked to add to the 19 per cent. unemployment level in the Rotherham and Mexborough travel-to-work area. We are being asked to threaten jobs in an area where 51·3 per cent. of the male unemployed have been claiming benefit for more than a year. In March, 4,310 young people were on Government schemes or seeking work through the Rotherham careers office.

Between November 1987 and February 1988, only 55 full-time and three part-time vacancies were notified for the 4,310 young people seeking work in the area. In March, there were 499 unfilled vacancies at the jobcentre in the area which I represent and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther). In other words, there was one vacancy for every 40 unemployed people.
The Bill would make matters worse in the interests of profit for a newly privatised electricity supply industry. It would not act in the national interest. In the past decade British Coal has reduced its work force by 60 per cent., and the work force has been reduced by over half in the past three years. More than 125,000 job losses have been the direct and miserable cost of the coal industry's restructuring. The price has been paid by the mining communities. What more can these communities realistically be expected to give if there are to be further cuts in their areas?
What is to be done for the thousands of young people who have no opportunity to work? Some of them have been unemployed for four, five or six years. Many have never had a job, and they would love to take one if the opportunity came their way. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is giving us the opportunity to cause further job destruction by expanding the port at Immingham.

Mr. Michael Welsh: I agree with my hon. Friend's arguments on unemployment. Does he agree that it would be foolish to embark on an undertaking to bring minerals into this country when we have a 300-year supply of coal? Surely such importation would increase unemployment and ruin the balance of payments. Would it not be foolish to pay for imports when we can produce what is needed? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill should be rejected?

Mr. Barron: I concur with my hon. Friend's remarks. He will be aware of the damage that was caused to the balance of payments following the increase in oil prices in the early 1970s. That was a classic example. It seemed that we were prepared to cut off our noses to spite our faces. Warnings were issued by the British mining industry for many years that importing energy at such a high level was wrong. It was seen to be wrong when the price of oil on the world market increased fourfold in a short period.
I know that a three-line Whip has been sent to Conservative Members. They have been asked to support the Bill's Second Reading. Although there have never been more than 10 Conservative Members in the Chamber since the debate began, I suspect that we shall see more than 10 of them when the Question is put.
There is a strong rumour that the chairman of Associated British Ports has met the Minister to ensure that the Bill enjoys prime parliamentary time, that there will be a healthy vote in its favour, and that it will have some chance of success. It is a disgrace that it has been introduced in such a manner. It has been rushed through, and accompanying it is a flimsy letter from the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes that fails to deal with the problems that will arise in many areas. I note that the hon. Gentleman smiles. I am talking about Rother Valley, which is Labour controlled, and other areas that some of his hon. Friends represent. These areas will be under attack if the Bill is enacted and implemented.

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend has made a serious allegation. I hope that he will ask the Minister to give a categoric denial that the chairman of Associated British Ports has met the Minister or any departmental officials with a view to pushing the Bill through the House.

Mr. Barron: If the Minister intervenes in the debate, I hope that he will tell us whether the rumour to which I have referred is true. As I have said, it is strongly rumoured that there has been a direct approach to someone within the Department by the chairman of Associated British Ports.
I shall bring my remarks to a close as I am aware that others wish to participate in the debate. It may be that we shall not have sufficient time to complete our consideration of the Bill on Second Reading this evening because of the number of hon. Members who wish to speak. It may be necessary for the debate to be continued at a later date.
The communities that I represent, along with many that are represented by others in this place, have paid the price of restructuring, and it will be paid by future generations. These communities should be allowed to reap some of the benefits that should accompany increases in productivity. We are all aware of the increases in productivity that have been achieved in the coal industry over the past three years, and I want to ensure that the communities that I represent benefit accordingly. One way of ensuring that they do so would be to reject the Bill. Let us ensure that if there is a Division on Second Reading this evening there will be a majority against it.
If the Bill is given a Second Reading tonight and later is enacted, its effect will be to exploit our people and the peoples of other countries. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has visited South Africa and he has seen the exploitation in that country's coal mines. I urge him to change his mind and to join us in rejecting the Bill's Second Reading.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): My intervention will be brief and will follow entirely traditional lines. The normal advice that is given to the House by all Governments, regardless of party, is that a private Bill should be allowed a Second Reading. That does not imply that the Government support it. It means that the Bill should be allowed to be considered in Committee so that it can be examined in detail on its merits. The promoter and sponsors can advance the case for it, and the petitioners can argue for amendment or rejection.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) referred to what he described as a strong rumour that I had met the chairman of Associated British Ports to have my arm twisted or my ear bent in receiving his views on why the Bill should proceed. I have not met the chairman of Associated British Ports in respect of the Bill. I have no knowledge of whether any other Minister or officials in the Department of Transport have done so. That has no bearing on what I have to say this evening.
I shall not comment on the Bill. All the arguments have been advanced for and against it.

Mr. Barron: If the Bill proceeds after its Second Reading tonight, will the Minister ensure that nobody else from his Department—perhaps even the Secretary of State

himself—has met the promoters of the Bill, and will he make that information available at the Committee stage or at another opportunity?

Mr. Mitchell: Had I or my colleagues been persuaded by the chairman of Associated British Ports, we might have been expected to express a view that was favourable to the details of the Bill. I have been carefully telling the House that I am adopting the traditional stance of not commenting on the Bill or on the arguments that have been made for or against it. I merely urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, so that the case can be properly heard. The House owes that much to the promoters. My action is not meant to show support for the Bill, but reflects the Government's purely conventional and neutral position. It is on that basis that I hope the House will allow the Bill to make progress, so that it may be considered in greater depth at the Committee stage.

9 pm

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister tells the House that the Government, with their usual neutrality, have nothing to do with the Bill. I remind Conservative Members who have not turned up for this debate, important though it is, and also my hon. Friends, that the same Minister, during the progress of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, assured the House that the Government were strictly neutral. Yet during the course of the long evening when that Bill was debated the Prime Minister herself voted on it on at least seven occasions, thereby demonstrating that the Government's neutrality was as bogus on that occasion as is the Minister's pretence that the Government have no interest in this Bill.
I say to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) that he would do himself a considerable favour if he would be less assiduous in trying to persuade the powers that be in the Government to arrange matters nicely for him. Conservative Members were in the House for a Whipped vote at 7 o'clock, and we know that they will be present again later tonight for another Whipped vote. We know that the sponsor of the Bill has written to his hon. Friends in such a way that it was described as a private three-line whip. That does not lead us to believe that there has been no jiggery-pokery with the Government's business managers.

Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) should be aware that the time allocated for today's private business is not a matter for the Government, or for the Opposition, but is arranged on the instructions of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I make no secret of the fact that I have invited my hon. Friends by letter to consider the points that I have made, and I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) has written to every Conservative Member asking them to join the Opposition Lobby.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman surprises me, either with his innocence or his naivety. I agree that the allocation of private business is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means. However, if the hon. Gentleman is trying to persuade me that it was other than the Government's business managers who allocated the debate that is to take place after this Second Reading, he is out of his head. He knows as well as I do that it is the Leader of the House, in conjunction with the Chief Whip and the business managers of his party, who make sure


that at the end of the day the Government govern. It is the Government's business managers who decide what business is transacted. Those same Government business managers ensured that Whipped business would be taking place after this private business, thereby guaranteeing that many of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends—and friends of apartheid—would be present to vote for the Bill.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: So far the hon. Gentleman has made no real argument against the Bill. It is not our fault that the Opposition changed the subject of today's debate and introduced contention after today's business was announced last week. The fact that Conservative Members are present to vote on certain issues should not surprise him. He should address himself more to the arguments relating to the Bill than to the business of the day.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) will forgive me if I do not always accept his advice on the content of my speeches or how I should present them. Having listened to the hon. Gentleman on many occasions, I find that I generally do better without his assistance. I shall not labour the point, but the hon. Gentleman is a little newer to the House than is his hon. Friend, and is a little duller. I shall try to explain again to him that it was the Government's business managers who allocated the business after this Second Reading, so guaranteeing that Conservative Members would be present in force tonight.
The Government, far from being neutral, are showing all the signs that they have shown in the past of wanting to support the Bill. The reason for doing so is simple, and it is the one given by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). The Bill is all part of the process of fattening up the CEGB for privatisation—fattening up revenues for the Government's coffers. It does not take an economic or mathematical genius to know that if the CEGB can operate with imported coal bought on the stock market—as it wants to—where prices, for this brief moment of history, are well below those of British Coal, it will be in a position to lower its costs and increase its prices. And the Government will be able to maximise their profits when privatisation of the CEGB takes place.
I am sure that many of my hon. Friends from the coal mining communities will make their points about the coal industry. They are better informed about it than I am. However, I shall make a few before moving on—

Mr. Harry Barnes: Although it is a fiction that the Government maintain neutrality, there is a case for them not to operate that fiction and to ask us to move against the measure. The preamble to the Bill states:
The purposes of this Act cannot be effected without the authority of Parliament".
That shows that the Bill is claiming that these things can be done only by means of a Bill of this kind. However, we know that planning permission being sought through the normal procedures from authorities in different parts of the country would be another way of achieving the Bill's aims. So the Bill is a fraud and the Government should take that into account when considering their attitude to it.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes might

want to consider. He told the House—surprisingly—that he thought this procedure was a better one for prosecuting a matter such as this. I have stated before that it would be far better if Parliament had nothing to do with these private Bills, which tend to be squalid little affairs. Accusations are often made—and justified—that Conservative Members are acting in the interests of some rather dubious groups, in this country or further afield.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has already been questioned about his links with the South African coal industry. If he would like to tell us how far his negotiations with that industry extend, he would do the House a favour. We would then be able to put his claims of disinterestedness to the test. At the moment they do not look good, in view of the accusations about his links with the South African coal industry.
Such issues, which may be hidden in this sort of procedure, would not be hidden if the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) of having proper planning mechanisms and local public inquiries were followed. In that way, local interest groups and people who would be affected could make clear their objections, which could be properly examined. That would be a more acceptable way of handling this.
We know that more than 100 Conservative Members who will be needed for the closure are secreted around the House, but the problem is that fewer than a dozen of them are present to hear the reasons that would justify, or not, their decision to vote for the Bill. That is why this procedure is objectionable to us. It fails to deal with the needs of those who petitioned against the Bill and, more generally, the needs of the nation. That is why the Government cannot escape their responsibility for such Bills. The Minister may tell the House that the Government's traditional posture on these issues is one of neutrality, but the Government do not always maintain such neutrality. The Minister, on many occasions, far from saying that the House should give a Bill a Second Reading so that the Standing Committee can get on with its examination of it, has made it clear, for instance, that the Government support the promoters of British Rail Bills.
It simply is not good enough for the Minister to pretend that the Government have no interest. Nor is it acceptable for the Minister to tell the House that the Government have no views on whether this development, which will have a major impact on British ports policy, is in the interests of the nation's ports or is an acceptable scheme and to say that the Government are neutral. It is not even acceptable for the Minister not to have a view on whether the petitioners' arguments are relevant. Several petitioners have raised substantive points and the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has failed to answer the criticisms that have been made.
In fairness, I should say that the hon. Gentleman has approached me on one issue, and I want to raise that with him now. One of the petitioners is Calor Gas, which has a storage facility which contains some 300 tonnes of liquid petroleum gas. I think that all hon. Members will accept that that is a considerable quantity of such potential danger—

Mr. Hardy: Horrifying.

Mr. Lloyd: For such a store to be put in jeopardy would be unacceptable to all hon. Members. Calor Gas has petitioned against the Bill because it is worried about the


safety of its facility. When neither the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, the sponsor of the Bill, nor the Minister addresses that issue, but simply says that it can be dealt with at another stage when the petitioners can have their say is not good enough. The House would be negligent if it did not take such real anxieties into account on Second Reading.

Mr. Michael Brown: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's anxieties and I have consulted the promoters about them. I have been advised by them that they have met the Health and Safety Executive and the Glanford borough council, which is the planning authority, and a representative of Calor. They are pressing the Health and Safety Executive for a definitive statement to reassure Calor that it will not lose its consent as a result of ABP's activities.
Having advertised the Bill, ABP has had no adverse comments from the Health and Safety Executive and, until receiving the Calor petition, did not appreciate how anxious the company was. Calor and Coneco are customers of ABP, and it will want to do everything to reassure them because they are major customers and users of the facilities. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that, if the Bill receives its Second Reading and goes to a Private Bill Committee, such legitimate issues can be considered, with Calor as petitioners.

Mr. Lloyd: I do not find it reassuring that a company with such high credentials as we are told ABP has should sponsor a Bill for which it seeks a Second Reading in the House of Commons without having addressed fundamental safety issues. The hon. Gentleman can correct me if I am wrong, but my information is that ABP did not approach the Health and Safety Executive in an attempt to discover the position.
The hon. Gentleman's explanation is inadequate in another respect. It is not satisfactory if ABP's only reason for wanting to have the matter resolved is simply that it values two large commercial supporters with whom it has substantial dealings. Once again, the actions of the promoters of the Bill and the Government leave a lot to be desired.
The issue of that installation is fundamental, because Calor Gas says that its store will be within 50m of vessels that will be moored on the new jetty if it is built. That is sufficient to make it extremely worried about whether it would be allowed to continue operating at that jetty under existing regulations—the Health and Safety Executive guidance note GS40 on the loading and unloading of bulk flammable liquids and gases, and the API standard 2510 on design and construction of liquid petroleum gas installations. My hon. Friends and I would be the first to argue that if Calor Gas can no longer operate the installation in a manner compatible with safety, the facility must be closed down. If the building of the new jetty will make the liquid petroleum gas installation unsafe, it would be negligent of the House to fail to have the facility closed down.

Mr. David Mitchell: Perhaps it might help the hon. Gentleman and reassure the House to know that the Conoco and Calor Gas operation is a notified installation under the Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982, so the Health and Safety Executive will certainly be considering the matter if the Bill proceeds.

Mr. Lloyd: That is exactly the point. The House will, indeed, be considering the matter if the Bill proceeds. However, it is a fact of life that the HSE should have been approached by Associated British Ports before the Bill came before the House. It is certainly my clear understanding—the HSE can speak for itself—that the HSE feels considerable unease, to say the least, about the way in which the matter has been handled and the fact that it was not consulted by ABP before this stage. That should give us no cause to he happy about the way in which the Bill has been handled.
The installation is the single most important matter that has been raised because of the clear implications of 300 tonnes of liquid petroleum gas going up in flames, but there are other—

Mr. Mitchell: I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Barron: The Minister is defending the Bill.

Mr. Mitchell: No. I am simply trying to put it on record that if the Bill proceeds and the Health and Safety Executive feels that there is a risk, that body will be able to deal, not with this proposal, but with the risk item, which is the liquid gas installation and storage facility. The HSE has power to deal with that matter at its discretion.

Mr. Hardy: Will my hon. Friend comment on, and seek the Minister's further comments on, the fact that when we debated the Hampshire (Lyndhurst) Bypass Bill the Government were able to confirm to the House that the two public agencies responsible for advising them on that Bill—the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission—had given advice, even though they had then ignored it? In this case, at the same stage of the Bill's consideration, the Government cannot give us the advice of the public agency that should be responsible for giving advice. As the explosive capacity of liquid petroleum gas is horrific in its proportion and volume, it is remiss of the Government not to make available the sort of advice that was made available on previous Bills. As the Government have not provided that advice, will my hon. Friend suggest to the Minister, not only that he should abstain on Second Reading, but that he should ensure that his ministerial colleagues do the same?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend gives the Minister some sensible advice. Clearly, the statutory body responsible, the HSE, has not been in a position to comment. It is amazing that the Government can remain neutral when they should have taken expert advice from the HSE. The Minister could then properly have informed hon. Members about whether the proposed development was inherently unsafe or whether it was acceptable and posed no threat to the gas storage installation.

Mr. Mitchell: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The Health and Safety Executive is not involved in the matters that are proposed in the Bill. That is not its responsibility. Its responsibility is to decide whether the gas installation should be allowed to continue if the Bill became law and the jetty was used. I make it absolutely clear that the Health and Safety Executive does not have a responsibility for the jetty that is proposed in the Bill. It does have a responsibility for the gas installation nearby. If it took the view that the gas


installation was not acceptable in that close proximity, it would have powers to deal with the gas installation, but not with the jetty.

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the technical process, and I agree with him that that is the formal logic. Nevertheless, that situation serves merely to highlight my anxieties. If the Minister is telling the House that the Government, in their neutral attitude to the Bill, are so laid back that they will not take seriously a threat to 300 tonnes of liquid petroleum gas until such time as the HSE has had the opportunity to find out whether vessels will ram the storage terminals, I must tell him that he should not be doing the job that he is doing tonight in the House.

Mr. Barron: Is my hon. Friend aware that Ian Greer Associates wrote to me this morning about the effect on the gas installation? The Minister seems to be defending the Bill. The letter says:
The promoters have met Calor Gas but as of yet they have offered no amendment to the Bill or given an explanation which is satisfactory to Calor.
Indeed, it is believed that the results of the Bill will be the closure of the gas installation and will cost the jobs that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) says he wants to encourage in his constituency.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend was kind enough to give me a copy of that letter. On this occasion Calor Gas has behaved in a completely reputable way. Obviously it has a commercial interest to defend, but it is also determined to defend its reputation as an operator that does not want to endanger the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people.
The Minister should have been able to tell the promoters of the Bill and Opposition Members that the Government can say definitively that the development does not jeopardise that installation, or alternatively that the Government cannot support the Bill tonight because the threat to the installation is so great that it risks devastation and loss of human life on a massive scale.
I shall now turn to another significant item raised by a petitioner against the Bill. The Anglian water authority, which is responsible for land drainage, water courses and effectively for the whole water system in the area of this development, has expressed grave doubts which could not be considered to be motivated by private gain or personal profit. Its doubts stem from the floods on the east coast in 1953. Although I am rather too young to remember that time, I am aware that there was considerable loss of life. As a result, at considerable expense, the Anglian water authority and its predecessor bodies managed to erect a system of sea defences which have protected that coast for all those years.
The Anglian water authority has expressed grave anxiety about the proposed developments by Associated British Ports. It believes that the developments will jeopardise the sea defences that it has provided. It believes that during the construction phase of the jetty, and later when the jetty has been established, it will so fundamentally alter the manner in which the water system works that it will threaten the sea defences and expose the

constituency of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and others to the devastating flooding that occurred on that coast 35 years ago.
Associated British Ports has completed a model of the development. Such a model should have existed long before now. Expert information in the form of mathematical and physical models should have been made available to all those concerned. The Minister of State ought to have been able to allay the fears of hon. Members by saying that there is no threat to the sea defences, as suggested by the Anglian water authority. The Minister has told us that he is neutral. He has also told the House that he is unable to provide expert information about liquid petroleum gas. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is unable to say whether there is a real threat to the sea defences in that area. This is a matter of such fundamental importance that one can say that the promoters have been negligent in promoting a Bill for which they have been unable to provide the appropriate information.

Mr. Allen: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that 70 per cent. of the deep mine coal capacity in Nottinghamshire goes to power stations in the Trent valley? If a port with a capacity of 5 million tonnes is created, it will have a tremendously detrimental effect on the mining industry in Nottinghamshire and throughout the east midlands.

Mr. Lloyd: I have already made that point. One of the reasons for the Bill is that it provides the Government with a means of fattening up the CEGB for privatisation. An inevitable part of that process is the importation of cheap coal that can be bought at Rotterdam and elsewhere. It allows the CEGB to reduce its costs and increase its profits. It also allows this bankrupt Chancellor of the Exchequer to prop up Government expenditure, as he has done every year since he became Chancellor, with the proceeds of the privatisation that has ripped off the British public. In this case he will be ripping off the jobs of miners in the midlands and elsewhere, including those of miners in the constituencies of Conservative Members. I know that that worries at least one Conservative Member, and perhaps that is to his credit.
Miners' jobs are of critical importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has this evening handed me a letter from people in his area. They are anxious about the knock-on effect in the diminished south Wales coalfields if they come under pressure from the midlands coalfields because their coal is displaced by imported coal.
The problem over the 300 tonnes of liquid petroleum gas is of such devastating importance, if this development gets it wrong, that the House would be failing in its duty if it did not take the matter on board. The undermining of the sea defences on the east coast is another matter of such importance that the House would be failing in its duty if it adopted a position of benign neutrality, as urged by the Minister of State. I urge my hon. Friends and also the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley and reject the Bill. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes should consider whether he ought to say to the promoters that, as that information is not available, he is not prepared to vote for the Bill.

Mr. Andy Stewart: The Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill is an innocent title for a Bill which would more honestly reflect its aims if it were called the Destruction of the British Coal Industry Bill. As with most cover titles, nothing is revealed until we turn the pages and find the hallmark of the international coal producers whose covetous eyes are on the British coal market. Their initial aim is to kill off the indigenous supply and reap their reward by blackmailing their customers into paying their inflated price on a take-it-or-freeze option.
However, one of the limitless virtues of the Government is not leaving the country open to internal or external blackmail. We well remember the hike in energy prices in 1973 as a result of another international cartel operation. The resulting largesse stimulated a flood of development, led by the oil companies, of opencast coal mines in the lowest-cost reserves anywhere, however remote, in the world, the favourite countries being Australia, South Africa and Colombia. Their plan was to meet the extra demand for coal worldwide, but the optimistic forecast did not materialise because of the industrial recession and the completion of nuclear power stations ordered in the 1970s. That left the speculating producers with a huge surplus of unwanted coal, their predicament being heightened by the collapse of oil prices 18 months ago. Solutions had to be found to salvage their investments.
The first solution was to mothball mines where possible. The second was to use the supermarket technique of loss leaders to attract customers. Alas, from which countries would they come? The United States of America? No. United States power stations are persuaded not to buy foreign coal. In 1986, out of a total market of 630 million tonnes, only 1 million tonnes were imported into the United States. France has protection, but needs very little coal since 78 per cent, of its energy requirements come from non-coal power stations. West Germany, the most successful country in Europe, has a fully protected coal industry. Britain, with its 100 million-tonne market, has no legal protection and is an obvious choice for coal dumping. Ports capable of handling super coal tankers are needed; hence our debate.
The supporters of the Bill have told the House of its virtues in job creation, cheaper coal and cheaper electricity but have glossed over its real intention—the destruction of Britain's successful and profitable coalfield in Nottinghamshire by offering coal at prices below the cost of production to Nottinghamshire's existing five 2,000 MW power stations, with a further new one to be built alongside an existing station at West Burton. The present international coal prices, valued in sterling, are substantially below the levels sustainable in the medium to long term. The position is endorsed in the document published recently by Coopers and Lybrand called "Coal in Crisis". If, during the period of unsustainably low prices, substantial coal imports were to come into the Humber, they could threaten with irreversible closure a minimum of 10 million tonnes of capacity in the midlands coalfields.

Mr. McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that this will also threaten the great investment which has been put into British Coal by the Government? Rather than wanting to see an end to British Coal, the Government

have shown overwhelming commitment in the amount of investment in particular in the areas where the miners stood strong and steadfast behing their right to work during the inflicted 12-month coal strike.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend has put the point well. I agree that the Government have honoured their commitment to the coal industry.
Recent prices are not sufficient to earn profits for the main coal exporting mines. A return on capital has been put off by the biggest of the new mines in an effort to drive out the competition. The Bill reminds me of the Trojan horse—innocent looking but devastating in its effect. The aim is to kill British Coal's goose, the Nottinghamshire coalfields, where 50 per cent. of British Coal's profits are generated, and the remaining coalfields will die by themselves. How else can the international coal producers capture a market other than by loss leader prices? This raises a fundamental question, do we really want electricity supplies to be in the hands of foreigners, or do we support British Coal and the miners who have brought about such a radical transformation to their industry in the three years since the strike?
The wages and productivity deals freely negotiated by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and subsequently imposed on members of the National Union of Mineworkers have been the basis for productivity in British Coal rising by 60 per cent. and coal prices at power stations being reduced by 22 per cent. in real terms. Collieries are continuing to improve their performances. At present rates of improvement, they will be highly competitive by 1992. However, there is a period before then when many will be vulnerable to subsidised coal imports. It would be tragic to threaten the progress that British collieries are making for the very short-term gains from imported coal.

Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman apply his remarks to collieries in his constituency where a number of my constituents worked, notably Linby colliery, which was closed recently, Babbington colliery, which was closed two years ago, and Hucknall colliery, which was closed a year ago? All those collieries are either within or on the borders of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Surely that is a product not of any ports Bill, but of the whole economic philosophy of the Government, as directed towards the mining industry? Where was the hon. Gentleman when those closures occurred?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman should do his homework better. Hucknall colliery had £100 million of taxpayers' money expended on it and, when the twelfth seam of coal, which was expected to contain 25 million tonnes, was reached, there was nothing but sandstone. How does he expect to keep a business open with no coal? That is why it closed. It was closed with the agreement of the people concerned.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are digressing from the subject of the debate.

Mr. Stewart: The threat to the progress made by British collieries has been endorsed in "Coal on the Market" by Michael Prior and Gerard McCloskey, which states:
Much British deep-mined coal can compete well with imports in 1990—but by 1995 the mines should be competing so well as to restrict imports to the periphery of the power station market…By 1995 any saving made by an all-out import policy in 1990 would have disappeared and the


electricity supply industry would be paying millions of pounds more for imported coal than by buying British…There is a severe risk that many deep mines which could compete with imported coal in 1995 will be closed by 1990 if the government encourage an early free-for-all on imports.
The UDM has always accepted fair and unfettered competition, but this potential threat to Nottinghamshire would be catastrophic. Already, restructuring has seen 15,000 men leave the industry with six pit closures. Today British Coal in Nottinghamshire employs 27,000 people, generating over £320 million to the local economy. It pays £5·6 million in rates and spends £130 million on goods and services, as well as being the largest industrial employer in the country.
The coal industry and its employees also generate further employment in the service sector and manufacturing industry. When the country faced a shutdown of the coal industry in 1984, it was the Nottinghamshire miners and their families who put their industry and country first. Since then, they have led the industry into a new era of successful industrial relations and productivity with one objective in mind—to stay in business. If the House rejects the Bill, they will do just that and the country's dividends will be tenfold.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: One of the most significant points to emerge from the debate is that the Bill may be defective because the proposed site will be very close to the Calor Gas undertaking. It is unfortunate that, when trying to give the House information in response to a legitimate inquiry, the Minister appeared to say, "If there is a difficulty, Calor Gas will have to move to allow the port to proceed." We have probably identified why the Bill should not have been presented to the House. It is certainly defective in regard to Immingham.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) put me in mind of the presidential election campaign fought by Barry Goldwater, the Republican candidate, whose friends thought up a phrase to help him which ran, "In your heart you know he's right." The hon. Gentleman tried to tell us that, in our hearts, we know he is right. The Democrats thought of another phrase, however. They came up with, "In your guts, you know he's nuts." We have an absurd proposition before us.
The Bill involves substantial sums of money—£34·5 million has been mentioned. I suppose that this is not the time to ask where the money is coming from, but it is fair to ask whether it is a wise investment. Some of us are worried about the impact of the proposed works on employment in other industries such as coal and railways.
I must protest at the limitation on the time available to debate this important issue. Many of my hon. Friends want to speak, but will be unable to do so. This is not a local issue, but a national one. We have to ask why the Bill exists. We have also to ask about the background to our debating it here.
The Bill covers quite a bit of country. It goes from Immingham in Humberside to King's Lynn in Norfolk and Port Talbot in West Glamorgan. It is estimated that the works at Immingham will cost £13·5 million and that those at King's Lynn will cost £4 million. I do not know whether it is a defect in the Bill or an attempt to keep us in sublime ignorance, but, although Port Talbot is

mentioned, there is no estimate of what the works there will cost. The money involved in the Bill will be far more substantial than the figures that we have been given.
Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have little doubt that the Bill has been sprung as a result of the Government's proposal to privatise the electricity supply industry. No doubt to get backing for his privatisation proposals, the Secretary of State for Energy announced that he would present no opposition to the purchase of foreign coal in preference to British coal. The Secretary of State calls that choice and working for the market. Coal importers all over the world cannot believe their luck to have such a push-over as the Secretary of State and this Government. We are aware of the history of the Department of Energy. Its terms of reference are to liquidate the nation's assets.
Substantial sums of money are involved in the Bill, so it is only right and proper to ask whether the proposed investment is worthwhile. It is geared, as the sponsor of the Bill confessed, to provide a facility for importing foreign coal. Millions of pounds worth of foreign investment is identified in the Bill, but does it make economic sense to accept that investment when by doing so we shall liquidate billions of pounds that have already been invested in the British coal industry, plant manufacturing industry and jobs? I shall explain what I mean when I talk about liquidating billions of pounds worth of investment. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) came close to answering the question when he said that it is nonsense to liquidate the billions of pounds that have been invested in the mining industry.
We recently had a debate on the coal industry and were able to identify what has happened to it. We were able to say that at the end of the miners' strike 169 pits had been closed and that by the end of March 1988 only 96 were likely to be left, even after three new pits had been opened at the Selby complex. Total manpower has fallen from 220,000 to 127,000—a reduction of 93,000, of whom 78,000 were mineworkers. Those are only figures and do not tell of the misery and pain that that caused mining communities. It went under the name of restructuring, and it was a contraction of manpower and job loss without parallel in recent times in any industry.
As to the market for British coal, there is little doubt that the industry's future is tied up with that of the electricity industry. Over 75 per cent. of British Coal's sales are made to the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board. Since 1982–83, 70 per cent. of its total output has gone to those sources.
It is a matter of record—my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) referred to this matter in his speech—that the CEGB told the Energy Select Committee in 1986 that it could import 30 million tonnes of coal within three years. Since that time, the Secretary of State seems to have been helping that process. He has given permission for the 8 million tonnes a year deep water port at Fawley near Southampton. The Bill is one of two that seeks approval for two ports on the Humber capable of handling 5 million tonnes a year. The SSEB has facilities to import 1 million tonnes.

Mr. Alan Meale: I am pleased that my hon. Friend is saying that foreign coal that comes into the dock, if it is approved, will go directly to the power stations. Is he aware that in the central area coalfields of Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and the midlands, 65 million


tonnes is produced and supplied to local markets, and 50 million tonnes of that goes directly to power stations? Is he further aware that in Nottinghamshire, at Blidworth, 51 per cent. of the coal goes directly to power stations? I can also give the following figures: 80 per cent. at Calverton, 87 per cent. at Ollerton, 93 per cent. at Thoresby, 95 per cent. at Creswell, 97 per cent. at Harworth, 98 per cent. at Bilsthorpe, and 98 per cent. at Silverhill. At Bevercotes, Cotgrave, Sherwood, Welbeck and Clipston, 100 per cent. goes to power stations. Was my hon. Friend aware of that?

Mr Eadie: My hon. Friend has given accurate figures in his intervention. If I have time, I shall identify all the pits that are involved when we discuss importing foreign coal.
The Government seem to encourage those initiatives and act as if they were blind to the consequences for British Coal and its long-standing arrangements with the electricity industry. The free market is the optimum mechanism of planning the production of coal and electricity, despite the fact that Sir Robert Haslam, among others, has warned that the international coal market is not and is unlikely to become a free market.
We must bear in mind that the displacement of 30 million tonnes of coal could mean the closure of about 50 collieries and the loss of nearly 47.000 jobs. On the basis of the CEGB's schedule, the link between certain pits and power stations, and the cost structure of collieries, one can construct an impact table in which collieries are ranked from high cost to low cost.
I should like to confirm what has been said about the effect of the proposed works at Immingham on Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. We are talking about eight pit closures involving 9,000 jobs. Mining communities can no longer afford such job losses.
In considering the proposals, I want to look at every area in the United Kingdom against the background of 30 million tonnes of coal imports—incidentally, the figure has been increased to 50 million tonnes.
At present there are four pits in Scotland. There will be none left. In the north-east there are seven pits, and one will be left. In north Yorkshire there are now 14 pits and six will be left. In south Yorkshire there are 19 pits and 11 will be left. In Nottinghamshire there are 19 pits and 10 will be left. In the central area—the midlands and north Derbyshire—there are nine pits and four will be left. In the western area there are 11 pits and six will be left. In south Wales there are 14 pits and five will be left. There will be a slaughter.

Mr. Lofthouse: Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the 50,000 men in the mining industry to whom he referred, another 30,000 in supporting industries will be made redundant?

Mr. Eadie: I was coming to that point, but I gather that I must leave time for the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, who is sponsoring the Bill, to speak. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is fair enough. I shall go on because I have a great deal more to say.
I want to protest on behalf of my hon. Friends in the only way that is possible now. We are not debating the issue adequately. It is a national issue. The average age of the men in the mining industry is 34 and they are being thrown on to the scrap heap. That is a scandal.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South): Will the hon. Gentleman watch the clock so that one more

speaker from the Conservative Benches may speak? He may find that there is support from these Benches for his arguments.

Mr. Eadie: If I allow time for one more speaker, it has to be for an hon. Member who has been here during the debate. If the hon. Gentleman wants to take part in the debate, he should attend throughout.
I wish to develop some of the important arguments. We must look at the point raised by the hon. Member for Sherwood, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley and to some extent by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). What about the cost of this proposal? I have said already that it is stupid to talk about an investment of millions of pounds to liquidate an investment of billions of pounds. We can look at the cost of the kind of proposal in the Bill.
British Coal figures that were prepared for the Manvers colliery independent review body hearing show that the average cost of making a Manvers miner redundant under the existing scheme is £24,700 by way of lump sum payments. If those payments were made to 47,000 more miners, the cost would be £1·16 billion—not millions. The Government have already paid out in excess of £2 billion in redundancy payments to miners. There must be added to those figures the annual cost of unemployment in lost taxes and national insurance contributions, and in unemployment payments. The total cost of redundancies in the coal or related industries is likely to be around £7,000 million. Although I talked about 47,000 miners becoming redundant, there could be 78.000 or 79,000 jobs lost altogether. The sponsor of the Bill has told us about jobs involved in his proposition. Any fair-minded person seeing his proposition, which put thousands of jobs in danger, will realise that it is the economics of bedlam and lunacy.

Mr. Michael Brown: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MR. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I respect your judgment in these matters. I am not seeking in any way to challenge it, but I would draw your attention to your own comments last Friday 6 May, in column 1147 of Hansard.
You kindly undertook that you would have regard to points of order being taken out of time in a debate. I realise that was on an amendment and that we are now talking about a Second Reading. However, when the Chairman of Ways and Means was in the Chair, I sought to move the Second Reading of the Bill at 7.35 pm and for half an hour of my speech there were a number of points of order. I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that you might have borne that fact in mind when considering my request for a motion to put the Question.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. All those factors are borne in mind, but I have also to bear in mind the fact that many hon. Members on both sides of the House still wish to take part in the debate.

Mr. Eadie: I want to begin to conclude my remarks. We have learned tonight that a Department of Energy Minister has stated that the Government intend to


privatise the coal industry in the next Parliament. I believe that the Bill is related to that. We will be talking about more and more job losses in mining.
The Government tell us that they are very cost conscious. They are not. This is probably one of the most extravagant Governments in living memory. I could go on to identify—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

European Community (Indirect Tax Harmonisation)

10 pm

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8199/87 on indirect tax rates and structures, 8200/87 on value added tax rates, 8201/87 on the removal of fiscal frontiers, 8202/87 on a value added tax clearing mechanism for intra-Community sales, 8203/87 + COR 1 on convergence of rates of value added tax and excise duties, 8204/87 and 8205/87 on taxes on cigarettes and other manufactured tobacco, 8206/87 on excise duty on mineral oils and 8207/87 + COR 1 on excise duty on alcohol.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the Opposition amendment.

Mr. Lilley: This is a very timely debate. Next weekend the Economic and Financial Affairs Council, hereafter known as ECOFIN, is meeting informally to discuss approximation. It is right that the House should have the opportunity to discuss these matters beforehand, if not to hear them. I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will study carefully the views that will be expressed by hon. Members tonight.
I am very grateful both to the Select Committee on European Legislation and to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee for their invaluable reports.Both reports confirm that, in most significant areas, the Government's overall approach is one which most hon.Members support.
Perhaps it would help if I summarised the three main features of the Commission's proposals. First, the Commission has proposed the approximation of value
added tax rates. All member states would apply two positive rates—a standard rate between 14 per cent. and 20 per cent.; and a reduced rate between 4 per cent. and 9 per cent. There would therefore be no scope to apply a zero rate. The reduced rate would apply to foodstuffs, excluding alcohol, energy for heating and lighting, water, passenger transport, pharmaceutical products, and to books, newspapers and periodicals. All other taxable items would be standard rated.
The second major feature of the proposals is that exports would no longer be zero rated. Tax would be charged across frontiers, at a rate applicable in the exporting country. A clearing house would reallocate displaced revenues to member states in which goods or services are consumed.
Third, the Commission has proposed a complete harmonisation of rates on excise duties. The proposed rates are based on a mixture of weighted and arithmetic Community averages.
Before commenting on the proposals, I should emphasise that the Government share the Commission's ultimate objective to create a single internal market by removing unnecessary obstacles to trade. We are wholeheartedly committed to that, but, as we have already made clear, we have fundamental difficulties with the Commission's approach.
We simply do not think it is necessary for the completion of the internal market that tax rates be approximated. Moreover, we have a major difficulty with the Commission's proposals for zero rates. As drafted, the


proposal makes no provision for zero rates, although the Commission has hinted at temporary derogations for member states with particular difficulties.
We have made specific pledges to the electorate to retain zero rating on food, fuel and power, and children's clothing. I can assure the House that we neither wish nor intend to resile from those pledges. So I would have been happy to accept the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and our hon.Friends.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the Minister's spendid assurance about VAT on fuel, if the European Court of Justice tells the Government in about three weeks' time that they are breaking the law by not levying VAT on gas and electricity on industry and commerce—on every small and big firm in this country—will the Government stand firm and reject the European Court's decision?

Mr. Lilley: We are talking about fuel and power for domestic consumption, which is not an issue in the infraction case. If the infraction case were to go against us in the matter of fuel and power for industry, that would not represent a burden for industry. It would be offset against the value added tax levied on output.
Apart from the specific pledges of zero rating on other goods, no specific pledges have been made that would restrict the freedom of action of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We believe that it should remain for my right hon. Friend, who is responsible to this Parliament, to decide whether to retain zero rates on the items on which specific pledges have been made.

Mr. Michael Foot: Is there any good reason why we should not now have a pledge on books and newspapers, an issue that has caused so much interest and concern? Why cannot we have a simple pledge on that score, which would relax or remove some of the controversy?

Mr. Lilley: It has been the practice of successive Governments not to limit the freedom of action of Chancellors of the Exchequer in that way. In the exceptional circumstances of a general election, specific pledges were made. We do not intend to limit the freedom of action of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in any other way. My right hon. Friend made it clear at the meeting of ECOFIN in November 1987 that the United Kingdom cannot accept proposals that would in any way restrict its ability to retain zero rates of VAT.
We have other areas of difficulty with the Commission's proposals of which the most important are its proposals for excise duty on alcohol and tobacco. The Commission's use of average rates means that in the United Kingdom the duty on alcoholic beverages would fall by between 40 and 85 per cent. while the duty on cigarettes would fall by about 10 per cent. Changes of this magnitude would have a marked effect on Britain's health and social policy. We have made it clear that the United Kingdom has fundamental difficulties with the Commission's approach in this respect.

Mr. Bob Cryer: As the Minister knows, the difficulties that he has described will return again and again, producing uncertainty in the publishing industry, for example, and in other areas to which he has referred. Can he say that the chief organiser of these

difficulties, Lord Cockfield, who is an appointee of the Prime Minister—he is the source of all these ridiculous proposals—will be replaced when his term of office comes to an end? In that way the source of these difficulties will be diminished.

Mr. Lilley: No, I cannot give that assurance. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that Britain is not alone in having problems with these proposals.

Mr. Michael Fallon: My hon. Friend has spoken of the Government's objection to the changes in excise duty on tobacco and their objection to the magnitude of the change that would be involved. Will he confirm that the Government object also to the sheer crudity of taking an arithmetical average as a means of achieving the harmonisation of excise duty?

Mr. Lilley: I have said that we do not think that it is necessary for achieving the ultimate objective, so I am inclined to accept my hon. Friend's point of view.
As I have said, the United Kingdom is not alone in facing difficulties with the proposals. Almost every member state has problems with the concept of a clearing house for VAT revenues. As proposed, the clearing house would be largely unaccountable, inauditable and open to fraud. The overall tax proposals would cause some countries that rely heavily on indirect taxes to lose a substantial amount of Government revenue, and others would have to increase indirect taxes substantially, or even impose them for the first time, on specific products.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my hon. Friend accept that many of us have a tremendous amount of sympathy for him in his position, he being at heart a sensible person who is living in a world of nonsense? How can it be right that those of us who like to smoke, as I do every now and again, and those who like to drink, as I do every now and again, will find that harmonisation will make drinking and smoking cheaper and make all other sensible things more expensive? Many of us accept that 1992 will be a good year for this country, but how can harmonisation be anything other than a great nonsense?

Mr. Lilley: I admire my hon. Friend's integrity in being able to withstand the prospect of cheapening his vices, and opposing the proposals which would bring that about.
We ought not to forget that the ultimate objective, both of the Commission's proposals and of our own approach to the internal market, is to dismantle unnecessary barriers to trade. The Commission has made clear the fact that it views its proposals simply as a necessary precondition of obtaining agreement on the dismantlement of barriers. Unfortunately, there is now a danger of getting bogged down in disagreements on that intermediate step. Therefore, attention is turning to the idea that we should move directly to starting to dismantle unnecessary barriers.

Mr. John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the United States, the fact that different states impose individual levels of local tax appears to create no such barriers? Is that not a much better model for the European Community than the line proposed by the Commission?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and it is one that I intended making. I am grateful to him


for making it for me. He is correct in saying that experience in the United States has shown that individual states can retain fiscal powers without damaging the self-evident internal market that the United States as a whole possesses.
Differences in VAT rates in Europe are usually small by comparison with the other factors that may affect prices either side of national borders and bring about a cross-border trading distortion.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Minister accept that VAT on public transport is a relatively small component compared with the subsidy which most other European nations apply to their public transport systems? Will the Minister ensure that our partners in the Community accept that fact, before insisting that we impose VAT on our largely unsubsidised fare levels?

Mr. Lilley: I accept the hon. Member's point, but I do not believe we shall need to deploy that argument because of wider differences and difficulties which we are not alone in facing.
The Commission itself has acknowledged the attractiveness of taking steps towards beginning to dismantle barriers before starting on the process of approximation. We believe there is ground for hope in that respect.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Instead of saying that the Government have difficulties with these matters, why cannot the Minister make a clear and unambiguous statement, with no here or there, that the taxation of the British people is a matter for the House and for no one else? We should be taking these decisions, not a body unelected by the British people and not removable by them.

Mr. Lilley: I gave clear and unequivocal pledges in the matter of zero rates, as the hon. Gentleman will recall. We have already conceded in some respects the power to tax to the European Community. Not long ago, I reported to the House the European Court of Justice case affecting spectacles, which ruling the House will be bound to observe—and the Government accept that it is so bound. I could not go as far as the hon. Gentleman wishes.
The Opposition amendment has been selected for debate and I presume that its intention is to ensure tighter parliamentary control over European fiscal legislation. I have every sympathy with that objective. However, the amendment ignores the excellent work of our European Select Committee in ensuring that Commission proposals are debated before they are finalised. The amendment will also hamper the Government's ability to negotiate forcefully on Britain's behalf, as well as making it harder for member states ever to achieve agreement. It is unworkable and unnecessary. I imagine that that is why the procedure incorporated in the amendment was firmly rejected by the last Labour Government.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Minister saying that, important though the Procedure Committee precautions are, he is denying the right of the House to decide what tax shall be placed upon the British people? If he is saying that, he is rolling back 300 years of constitutional history.

Mr. Lilley: I have just been reading the reports of the debate in 1976, in which the hon. Gentleman took part. His Government were then preparing to negotiate the sixth VAT directive. He made a similar point then and failed to persuade his own Government, and I am afraid he will not persuade me. It will be interesting to hear how erstwhile members of that Government and their supporters square the contents of the amendment with the practice of the last Labour Government.

Mr. Spearing: What about the Single European Act?

Mr. Lilley: This is not changed one whit by that.
It is still early days. Last November, ECOFIN referred these proposals from the European Commission to its economic policy committee for economic evaluation. The committee's interim report to ECOFIN in April highlighted many of the problem areas inherent in the Commission's proposals. The committee recommended that, irrespective of what Ministers eventually decided about harmonisation, member states should take steps as soon as possible to reduce obstacles to trade. That is an approach with which the Government can heartily agree.
Ultimately, any change to European tax law requires the unanimous agreement of member states. So the United Kingdom's position is safeguarded and there is no question of our being obliged to accept proposals with which we disagree. I repeat: the pledges that we have given to the electorate on zero rates are firm commitments by which the Government stand.
I have deliberately kept my remarks as brief as possible to enable as many hon. Members as possible to contribute. The purpose of the debate is to allow the Government to sense the feeling of the House. I look forward to hearing the views of hon. Members before ministerial discussion of these proposals gets under way.

Dr. John Marek: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add:
`and supports the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent statement that value added tax harmonisation is a distraction; and resolves that no Minister of the Crown shall give assent to any European Economic Community Instrument that authorises variation in the scope or rate of value added tax or excise duties payable in the United Kingdom unless authorised to do so by a Resolution of this House.'
We accept that frontier controls play a part in the control and administration of value added tax and excise duties for the United Kingdom. The Commission proposes their abolition by 1 December 1992 and says that great benefits will accrue to the Common Market as a result. Lord Cockfield, the Common Market Commissioner who is in charge of creating the single European market, said at Monday's launch of a book on the Cecchini report that the case for integrating the economies of the member states was fully proved. The study is optimistic about the effects of achieving a single European market, and we do not disagree with that, although we reserve our position on the degree of projected economic improvement.
The Commission says that it is essential that VAT and customs and excise duties be harmonised within the Community so that frontier controls can be abolished and a clearing house can be established to redistribute VAT and allocate it to the member states of the Community to which it is due.
I do not believe that these measures are necessary for further economic progress within the Community. Other


factors affect company decisions about where to locate and the main conditions that are necessary for fair competition. Differences in costs to industry and variations in tax structures between member states are certainly two such factors. The Commission has conducted a survey of 11,000 business men and the results show that the various VAT rates are not thought to be a serious barrier to intra-Community trade. The survey, which was carried out in 1986 by the Bureau Europeen des Unions de Consommateurs, found that prices of pharmaceuticals varied by as much as 500 per cent. between member states. Video recorders were 63 per cent. more expensive in Denmark than in the Netherlands, despite the fact that VAT was only 4 per cent. higher in the former. Prices of spare parts for well-known makes of car vary between countries by up to 52 per cent., before VAT. So I am sure that the rate of VAT and indirect taxes are not important for companies when making their decisions on location, or for competition and pricing policy. It is far more likely that the availability or otherwise of regional development grants, for example, will be seen as more important.
However, there are some problems with the present system. The main justification for VAT harmonisation is the Commission's desire to keep cross-border shopping under control. That happens to some extent in areas such as Luxembourg, the Rhine valley and the border between Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein. I have not heard the Danish Government complaining too bitterly about the cost of the present system, nor have I heard such complaints from the countries surrounding Luxembourg.
The United States manages to live with different taxation in different states despite urban borders such as that between New York state and New Jersey. There are liquor shops in one state but not in another in places throughout America, but that is not seen as intolerable.
The problem, if problem there be, is that a member state of the Community can attract retail customers by levying a lower rate of VAT than its neighbour. If the rate is sufficiently low and the geography is favourable, for example, if there is no Channel, and if the articles or goods are suitable—funerals, for example, are clearly not suitable—retail customers may be attracted across the state border.
That outlines the problem with the Commission's proposals. In order to overcome what may be a problem between some states in some places in the EC, the Commission proposes an all-embracing set of rules. First, it is surely not necessary to set an upper limit to any range of VAT as it is the possibility of member states bidding one another down that causes cross-border shopping problems. Secondly, Commission-identified problems do not occur throughout the Community, but only in some places. The United Kingdom, because of the Channel, is virtually unaffected by different VAT rates in other member states. Again, other factors are more important. Thirdly, some goods, as I have said, such as funerals, are simply not subject to cross-border shopping.
There are other reasons for not accepting the proposals. If implemented, through the extension of the VAT base, they would affect the standard of living of the poorer households. I know that the Government do not care one jot for those. That has been shown by their Budget measures and the cuts in social security and housing benefit—

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): Unworthy.

Dr. Marek: It is not unworthy; it is absolutely right. The Government do not care one jot about the standard of living of the poorer households. However, enough of that. There is some cross-party accord on this matter and I shall endeavour to be diplomatic from now on. Nevertheless, the poorest households will be hit hardest if VAT is charged at positive rates on items such as food, energy or public transport.
For example, households on an income of under £60 a week—that includes many households with pensioners and people who are unemployed—spend 43 per cent. of their incomes on goods that are currently zero rated. That is made up of 23 per cent. on zero-rated food and 20 per cent. on other zero-rated items. Contrast that with moderately wealthy families on £450 a week. They spend only 19 per cent. of their incomes on zero-rated goods—10 per cent. on food and 9 per cent. on the others.
Looking at the matter another way, the poorest fifth of all households spent 24·7 per cent. of their disposable incomes in 1985 in direct taxes compared with the top fifth who spent only 18·6 per cent. Many of those poorer households are too poor to pay income tax, but they spend one quarter of their income on other taxes. That is one of the most important statements that I shall make tonight.
The imposition of VAT on books, periodicals and newspapers will damage the quality of those items. It will damage the financial viability of regional and local newspapers. It will be a tax on knowledge. It will be a tax on bibles. It will reduce the number of books available to public libraries and schools. I am sure that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to make those points much more pungently than I do. The social benefits of reading cannot be disputed. That is particularly true at present when there is considerable anxiety about the problems of illiteracy. It would be an act of madness to restrict access to the printed word, inevitably hurting the poorest and weakest members of our society when education reform deserves a place near the top of any political agenda.
The printed word is not limited to books.

Mr. Barry Porter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Marek: I shall give way once, but it will be the last time because I want to put the Opposition's case and, like the Economic Secretary, I want to give Back Benchers plenty of time to make their comments in this short debate.

Mr. Porter: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I admire his intellect, but if he would halve his pace and double his volume, we might be able to understand what he is saying.

Dr. Marek: I take that as a helpful comment. Perhaps it should be addressed to those who control the microphones. If they could double the volume, we might get somewhere.
The Government would do well to remember the words of the late Iain Macleod, when VAT was first introduced in the United Kingdom:
On the general principle of avoiding tax on knowledge we intend that books, journals, newspapers and broadcasting should be at zero rate.
I wonder what has happened to the Conservative party since then.
The effect on deaf people will be noticeable and adverse. Amplifying aids that allow the hard of hearing to use the telephone and enjoy television would be made to bear VAT as would visual alarms such as flashing doorbells or vibrating pillow alarms. It would be VAT not at the lower rate but at the standard rate—a minimum of 14 per cent. if the Commission's proposals go through unamended. The proposals would also require charity shops to charge VAT on donated goods sold retail.
All that is being proposed with a view to abolishing frontier controls, but frontier controls will almost certainly not be abolished because they will be necessary for public security and to control drug trafficking and immigration. It has not been demonstrated that for the abolition of fiscal frontiers VAT needs to be harmonised. Tax adjustments for goods crossing intra-Community borders do not have to be made on site, with documents on the spot; they can be made elsewhere. There is no reason for upper limits on VAT, and any lower limits ought to be left to the countries affected by cross-border problems to sort out. At the very least, the lower band must be made to start at zero if it is ever introduced. It is right and necessary for some items to be zero rated and our present zero-rated goods and services account for about one quarter of total consumer expenditure in the United Kingdom. There may just be a case for a minimum duty or tax on fuel oil, used by industry, because that feeds into industrial costs, but I can think of no other instance in which a case can be made out.
It is unacceptable to impose a minimum of 14 per cent. on children's clothing in place of the present zero rate. It is unacceptable to put VAT on food. It is a pity that some food carried VAT already, although I realise that there are problems because of the revenue that it brings to the Treasury. It is unacceptable to raise VAT on items such as energy, books, newspapers, medicines and transport. As the Prime Minister said before the last election,
Look, if anyone tried to put VAT on children's clothes and shoes they would never, never, never get it through the House.
Three times, the Prime Minister said "never". The purpose of our amendment is to make absolutely sure that any such measures come through the House, and I hope that I have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House on this important matter.
The amendment merely seeks to support the Chancellor in the difficult negotiations that he will have. It is a supportive amendment to enable the House, representing the people of this country, to decide these issues. Equally, the amendment is not intended to antagonise the Commission or other members of the Community, as they value democracy as much as we do.
Let me deal with the harmonisation of excise duties. The Commission's proposals would mean that the tax would go down by about £2·40 on a bottle of spirits and by about 75p on a bottle of wine. There would be a considerable increase in the consumption of alcohol, with appreciable injurious consequences to the health of the nation. We must remember that alcohol-related problems already cost the country about £2 billion a year. The cost of a packet of cigarettes would fall by 12p with a resulting increase in smoking and consequently in illness and deaths from lung cancer.
Those effects would be just as unacceptable to the country as the imposition of proposals to harmonise VAT.
In any case, there is likely to be very strong opposition to the proposals on excise duties by various member states such as Spain and Portugal. It must be best to preserve the ability of each member country to set its own excise duties.
An alternative method of controlling and administering the movement of dutiable goods across frontiers is by a system of revenue marking for goods that leave the linked bonded warehouse system that is proposed. Particular markings would give a right for a product to be sold in any particular part of the Community in uniformity, and uniformity in duties would not be required. Cross-border retail shopping would occur in some areas, but, again, for reasons previously stated, I do not consider that to be an important or insurmountable problem.
The Opposition wish to suspend judgment on any such system, and merely ask the Economic Secretary about its costs. How much will it cost to operate? What will its compliance ratio be? Would evasion be possible on a large scale, or by a few criminals? Would there be any variance in those answers if the questions were asked about different states in the Community? If there is an EEC summit meeting, some compromise by the United Kingdom will be inevitable. Will such a system be regarded seriously by other member states, and will it have general approval from the public? If that cannot be demonstrated, I foresee great problems, as harmonisation of excise duties is not an acceptable solution.
I also ask whether there is a further hidden agenda and whether the Commission is putting forward its proposals not only on the specious ground of the necessity of abolishing frontier controls, but because it eventually wishes to harmonise corporation and income taxes. If so, it should tell us and clearly spell out its long-term intentions.
I shall make one final point on the proposed clearing house for VAT reconciliation payments. Companies will have to be careful about their documentation of imports, but as the revenue authorities will be able to recover their money from the clearing house, I imagine that many member states will not be too precise about exactly what was imported. A whole new bureaucracy will be created and our experience with the CAP should make us shudder. What will happen when the inevitable happens and the clearing house cannot balance the books? A rough and ready solution may be found, but we may be sure that this country will lose out. Our collection system is more efficient and more accurate, and as a result, as usual, we will lose out if such a system is established.
Mrs. Boothroyd—I mean Madam Deputy Speaker—I apologise. Yesterday, you were Mrs. Boothroyd and today you are Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I have never been Mrs. Boothroyd in my life.

Dr. Marek: I hope I have shown that the harmonisation of VAT and excise duties is, to use the Chancellor's word, a distraction from the aim of the unified market in 1992. It is unnecessary for achieving the aim of abolishing frontier controls. The problems of distortion of competition by the judicious use of excise duties can be solved in a different way.
The Opposition are resolute in their insistence that zero rating should continue to apply for essentials such as food, children's clothes, fuel, transport, medicines and other important items that are free of VAT at present.
Derogation is not enough as it may not be permanent. By the time that derogation is considered the argument will have been abandoned.
Our amendment supports the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his attempts to persuade the Economic Community of the correctness of those arguments. It also seeks to commit any Minister—a Tory Minister or a subsequent Labour Minister—to consult and receive the

assent of the House before any change is made to the rates of VAT or excise duties payable here. In doing so, it is setting out unequivocally the wish of the House that any powers to be given to the Economic Community or any changes in VAT or excise duties will be made as a result of a decisiom of this House. I recommed that the Government accept the amendment and invite all hon. Members to support it in the Lobby if necessary.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: My hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that this is a timely debate. It provides the House with an opportunity to express its views in advance of the EEC meetings that are about to take place. The Minister was kind enough to say that the Treasury Select Committee's third report on the "European Commission's Proposals on the Approximation of Indirect Taxation" is invaluable. That is the best compliment that the Committee has received so far on any of its reports.
In responding to that report the Government made it absolutely clear that they agree with the Committee's views. It is important to consider the arguments that we addressed in the report, but the fundamental point is the one that the Government accepted. They said:
The Government agrees with the Committee that the European Commission has not demonstrated that tax approximation is necessary for the completion of the internal market.
I agree with the Minister about the importance of working towards the completion of the internal market, but I feel bound to say that proposals of the kind that we are debating this evening do not advance the cause of creating a common internal market. On the contrary, they are likely to prove extremely divisive. Therefore, I hope that the House will back the Government by saying that there is no need for these measures and that it is important to preserve the concept of zero rating.
The evidence that the Committee took from Lord Cockfield was valuable and it is attached to the report. It highlights a number of important points. It shows clearly that Lord Cockfield is preoccupied with the need to remove customs barriers, whatever the cost in terms of distorting the Community's tax system. I am not unbiased. Almost 15 years ago I had the task of steering through the original legislation on value added tax. When we were preparing for that series of debates we had the advantage of seeing the mistakes that had been made elsewhere in Europe. We learnt from those mistakes. We devised a system of indirect taxation, value added tax, which in my view is vastly superior to any other system in Europe.
That system had two essential features, the first of which was that we should have zero rating, which meant that essential items, such as food, would not be taxed. When we introduced value added tax we abolished selective employment tax, which had caused great anguish, and also purchase tax. The objectionable feature of purchase tax was that it was a multiple-rate tax that sought to discriminate between one item and another. We said that we intended to abolish purchase tax and that instead there should be zero rating for essential items, with above that a single positive rate so that distortions would not arise.
This is a retrograde proposal. It will mean a return to asking whether one item is a luxury and whether another is not a luxury. If there is to be harmonisation, it is important that it should be introduced on the basis of the best available type of tax. I believe that that is the one that we have. We should fight in Europe for zero rating and for a single positive rate of tax.
Lord Cockfield and the Commission propose, not exactly the lowest common denominator, but what would be the easiest to negotiate by averaging all items. It would

European Community 424 result in a hotch-potch which nobody would be happy with and which anybody who gave any thought to the matter would realise was unsatisfactory. The only reason for such a proposal is that it would lead to the removal of customs posts. That seems to me to be the question that preoccupies the Commission, rather than the creation of a sensible taxation system.
There are very real problems, and in his evidence Lord Cockfield made it clear that costs may have to be borne if one is to retain a degree of independence. If that is so, it may be worthwhile paying the price in VAT. As was rightly pointed out a moment ago, we are also concerned with harmonising indirect taxes of other kinds, particularly the revenue duties on tobacco, alcohol and so on. Again, these are taxes which over the years the House has debated for many hours, days and weeks in some cases.
The taxes are imposed for good social as well as revenue reasons. It is wrong to suppose that the arguments can suddenly be overwhelmed in the interests of so-called approximation. It will not be easy to harmonise, because there are many interests in the Community, particularly in countries which produce alcoholic drink, including this country, where the social arguments may be countered by arguments on behalf of the producers. None the less, it would be absurd if we were to reduce the tax on tobacco, for example, by 12p a packet when we consider the costs that tobacco puts on the Health Service. Surely that is one reason why we should not agree with the proposals.
The Government should tell the Commission that we are not prepared to go along with the abolition of zero rating and the other measures that it proposes. The Treasury and Civil Service Committee suggested that we should make that clear at the outset, otherwise in the course of the negotiations it would be one counter to be traded. We should say at the start that any question of abolishing zero rating is not on and then proceed to negotiate on other aspects on which it may be necessary to make concessions.
I shall not speak for much longer, because many other hon. Members wish to speak, but I want to stress that the danger of going along the route of approximation is that we will be stuck with the outcome. There is no existing machinery within the Community for changing it except by reopening the whole package. Therefore, we would be giving up a major fiscal weapon which is necessary to reflect the difference between one country and another until such time as we gradually become a single market. It would be dangerous to say that we will put the whole weight of economic management within the United Kingdom on to direct rather than indirect taxation. I do not have time to develop that aspect, but it should be considered.
I make one final point to the Opposition. I hope that I may have the attention of the shadow Chancellor. The Opposition, together with many other hon. Members, have put down amendments to the motion. It is extremely important that we remain united on the issue. I do not believe that there is any difference in the House on it. We have heard why the Government cannot accept the Opposition amendment. Having expressed their views, the Opposition should not press the amendment to a Division, because that would create the impression that there is disagreement. I believe that the House is united in opposition to the abolition of zero rating and the other proposals, which are not only damaging, but unnecessary.

Mr. A. J. Beith: In following the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who chairs the Treasury Select Committee, I can add evidence to the united feeling in the House on harmonisation. I, too, am strongly opposed to it. Indeed, it is an extraordinary achievement of the Commission that it has managed to unite those who are in favour of British membership of the EEC and of the development of the single European market and those who are wholly opposed to both concepts. That seems to have been a slightly perverse thing for Lord Cockfield and others to have set about doing.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Select Committee discussions. There was a curious exchange in the Select Committee. I refer not to the exchanges between the noble Lord Cockfield and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) which had a rather more acerbic quality to them, but to the point where Lord Cockfield said:
in the Global Communication we said that the Member States should study the proposals and they should respond to them and we are waiting for them to respond".
The Government have taken the view that it would be inappropriate to respond by that means and that they should simply do so by speaking at the ECOFIN meeting. It was curious that there should be a breakdown in communication and that the Commissioner should be under a wholly different apprehension from the Government about how those discussions were to proceed.

Mr. John Marshall: Do I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly? Is he now going against the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), the leader of his party, only a few weeks ago?

Mr. Beith: I am happy to say that I am and that I did so at the time. If Conservative Members had been as successful in dissuading their party leader from pursuing unwise and mistaken tax proposals as we were, they would not now be saddled with the poll tax.
The act of harmonisation was in no way necessary for the achievement of the internal market. The achievement of the internal market is extremely important and valuable to this country. I was genuinely pleased to hear the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) assert that the Labour party believes that the creation of a single internal market is of importance and value. I did not hear loud cheers from behind him, but his assertion is welcome.
As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the measures are a distraction from the achievement of a single market and an irritant. They are just the sort of measures that get the European Commission a bad name and undermine the effort to achieve wider European unity. They are not necessary because it should be obvious to the Commission that it is possible to have different levels of taxes at the point of sale in a single economic unit without making the coherence of that unit impossible to maintain.
The United States has been quoted as an example of a country with widely varying sales taxes. It is perfectly feasible to have different levels of taxes operating at the point of sale and those differences do not alter the price to the customer of a commodity in the country in which he buys it. If they had a direct bearing on the price of the product in that country, they would represent a distortion

of trade, but they do not have that effect and, therefore, they are not a significant impediment to the internal market.
Value added tax has not caused most of the differences in prices of commodities between Britain and other Community countries. VAT did not make cars enormously cheaper, for a period, in Belgium than they were in the United Kingdom. It was primarily the manufacturers' pricing policies which led people to buy cars in Belgium and import them into the United Kingdom and which led the Government into all those complications about whether they should be left-hand or right-hand drive cars. That was the manufacturers' pricing policy responding to the market conditions. We hope that those conditions will change in a single internal market, but VAT was not the cause of those conditions.
An alarming down side would result from harmonisation, which would not allow for a rational decision about the tax level. That is of course true in the case of VAT because of the effect on major budget items, such as children's clothes and food, and on items for which, for other reasons, we think it important to keep zero rating, for example, books and newspapers.
It becomes particularly powerful as an argument when we consider excise duties. The idea that we should now reduce the price of a bottle of spirits by over £2 is absurd, given the enormous problems that are known to exist with alcohol and the fact that a ministerial committee is currently considering ways of tackling the problem and has had lamentably little influence upon the Chancellor so far. Similarly, a 12p reduction in the price of cigarettes would be absurd.
I am prepared to contemplate that, in the future, Europe might, in a concerted way, work out what might be a sensible health policy to guide taxation in some of those areas. However, we are a long way from that at present and we are certainly not in a position where it would be logical to determine the price of those commodities and the tax burdens on them by a process of averaging what is done in this country and what is done in Greece, which is at the opposite end of the scale.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who appears merely to be repeating what so many hon. Members have already said. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is advising the House, and me in particular, about how we should vote at the end of this important debate. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government's stand is not strong enough, or is he merely repeating arguments that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), the Government and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) made? I would appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman could say what he thinks the House should do.

Mr. Beith: I am not saying that the Government's stand is not strong enough, but I would have welcomed a clearer and more unequivocal pledge from them on books and newspapers.

Dr. Marek: They did not make a pledge.

Mr. Beith: That is right. The question that I was asked did not concern books and newspapers; it was whether I think that the Government are taking a firm enough stand on the harmonisation proposals of the European Community. As far as I can see, they are. I have mentioned


the apparent failure of communication between Lord Cockfield and the Government. It may be that Lord Cockfield is the one who has got the procedure wrong. No doubt the Minister will clarify that at the end of the debate.

Mr. Lilley: I think that I can offer the hon. Gentleman a better answer to give my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who wanted to know to whom his remarks were addressed. They were addressed to the dual leadership of his party. The motion that the hon. Gentleman would have liked to support, and which I would have been happy to endorse, says that the
objective of establishing the internal market in 1992 in no way requires the approximation of value added tax rates and excise duties".
"Hear, hear", we all say, but the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) went on record saying:
Europe cannot get rid of its internal customs barriers so long as VAT rates within the Community range from zero to 38 per cent.
Admittedly that was in a manifesto which, after being declared dead as a parrot, became a personal statement of deeply held views, but has the hon. Gentleman been able to overcome the deeply held views of the leaders of his party?

Mr. Beith: I think that it is on record that I have. When I gave way to the Minister I thought that he would throw some light on the matter for which he is responsible, which is telling Lord Cockfield the Government's view on the matter. As he has failed to do that now, I hope that he will be able to shed some light on it later. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity that I gave him. On the other matter, I have already made my position clear.
It comes strange from some hon. Members who have spoken that they profess to want to proceed to the single European market but they are not prepared to provide the conditions essential to its creation. Freedom of capital movements and the ability to concert macroeconomic policy are important, and we cannot proceed to a successful single European market if we are prepared to make no sacrifices of national sovereignty in the process.
We return to the fundamental arguments that we had when we joined the Community in the first place. The Government are suffering from a much longer lasting disagreement than that to which the Economic Secretary referred a moment ago. They are still unable to resolve their internal disagreement about whether Britain will join the European monetary system in time for the establishment of the single European market in 1992. I put the question to the Chancellor when he gave evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. He was unable to add anything. Treasury Ministers have so far failed to overrule the Prime Minister's continuing objections. If the Government could settle the issue by making it clear that they will not engage in the harmonisation that is asked for and then turn their mind to the far more pressing and important question of achieving British membership of the EMS, they would be doing the country, and Europe, a service.
There ought to be no doubt about the fact that there is virtually no support in the House for the harmonisation

proposals. If, however, we took a vote on who is prepared to back the true development of a single European market, we might find that the House is more divided.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: VAT is a subject that is close to my heart, especially with regard to children's shoes.
Shortly after becoming a Member of Parliament, I led a deputation to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Anthony Barber, to try to persuade him not to put VAT on children's shoes. I believe firmly that it is essential to do nothing to deter parents from buying well fitting shoes, and price is unquestionably an important factor. We succeeded in persuading him.
I have never been quite certain, but I have a distinct feeling that the fact that a sufficient number of us stood by the Bar of the House while he made his winding-up speech to have defeated the Government if he had not made the concession may have made some slight impression on him. I have always liked to believe that that was so.
Research has shown clearly that ill-fitting shoes can inflict permanent damage on children's feet which may not show until later in life. In the first few years of life, children's feet double in size and continue to grow rapidly up to seven years. They do not stop growing rapidly until the mid-teens. It is vital that shoes are changed as soon as they become even fractionally too small. The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that she will never allow VAT to be imposed on children's shoes. I am sure that she will keep her word. I was glad to hear the Minister's robust support of that promise in his speech tonight.
However, we now have these quite extraordinary proposals, fortunately only intended as a basis for discussion among member states. Two levels of VAT in broad bands are proposed to allow member states some latitude. They also acknowledge the possible need for some derogations from the VAT rules, especially in relation to zero rating. Fair enough. But it is incredible that they do not include children's shoes among the lower band or the social goods band. Children's feet have to last a lifetime. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has plenty of genes injected into her, but other people have other things.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Hormones.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is possible to get a new heart, new lungs, new kidneys and even a new brain—I think that my hon. Friend could do with some of those—but one cannot get new feet. Therefore, it is vital to look after them carefully in infancy and childhood. We should insist that children's shoes are put on a lower social goods band and that the band is changed from the proposed rate of 4 to 9 per cent. to 0 to 6 per cent. That would cost only 160 million ecu across the Community. Surely that is a small price to pay for a lifetime of healthy feet.
I very much hope that those proposals will be made by the Government and accepted by the Economic Community so that we no longer have to rely on derogation but have the zero rate permanently enshrined in European legislation.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am pleased to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster


(Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), particularly on the subject of children's shoes. I have here a copy of the debate on 16 May 1972 when, despite her protestations, the hon. Lady, when she could have done, did not move her amendment My former hon. Friend, now Lord Barnett, moved an amendment to counter the proposal by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), supported by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), to impose VAT on children's shoes.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No.

Mr. Spearing: It is no good the hon. Lady saying no, because she knows it is true.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is not.

Mr. Spearing: It is.
On 16 May 1972 my hon. Friend, now Lord Barnett, moved the amendment to insert the words:
Children's footwear of the type and size at present free from purchase tax".
That amendment was voted against, not only by the right hon. Member for Finchley, but by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).
A second amendment was to insert the words:
Garments and footwear of a kind suitable for young children's wear".—[Official Report, 16 May 1972; Vol. 837, c.246.]
Among those voting no was the hon. Member for Lancaster. so I hope that we shall hear no more from her and from the Prime Minister about their desire not to impose VAT because the Prime Minister, in Cabinet—which was different from the one that she presides over now—and in the House, agreed with the idea of imposing VAT on children's shoes.
I do not say that the Prime Minister is not genuine in her conversion to the belief that VAT should not be imposed, but she sometimes misleads the House when she says that the House will never vote for it. Although it did not do so then, and although the Government had to change their mind, she tried to make the House vote for those very things. That detracts from the vigour and strength with which the Prime Minister upholds the pledge that she gave at the election.

Dame Jill Knight: At that time there was not enough knowledge on what the wrong size shoes would do for children's feet. We had a long briefing on the matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said, she led a deputation on the issue. It was recognised at that time that many adults could wear small size shoes. Therefore, it was difficult to say that small sizes should be zero rated. It was decided that the rate should be determined by the type of shoe rather than by the size of shoe. There was a great deal of discussion on the matter.

Mr. Spearing: No doubt that is true, but the difficulty which the hon. Lady said was dealt with in 1972 will be with us again. I do not think what she has said is relevant. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, some of my hon. Friends and the Government want the speed of and movement towards harmonisation to be decided by the House. Unless that is decided by the House, it will be decided in negotiations by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or a Minister. In those circumstances, the House becomes a consultative assembly. Conservative Members may deny that, but it is

the truth. By not passing the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), the House would he saying that we will not have the final word on this issue. We will give the power to negotiate and decide to the Executive. We will give the power to the Executive to decide the tax and we do not reserve to ourselves a veto on the extent and degree of the strength of that Executive. Whether the Executive be in Whitehall or in Brussels, that is the position. Some hon. Members may want that. If they do, they should say so.

Mr. George Walden: rose—

Mr. Spearing: I am tempted to give way, but I do not think that I should. We are constrained by time.
We have before us the proposals of the Commission, which the Government have commented on in their explanatory memorandum. The proposals have been summarised in the report of the Select Committee. It is not the Select Committee which decides whether we have a debate, although it can recommend that. It is the House that decides whether we should have a debate before a decision is taken. However, decisions are sometimes taken before we have a debate. The role of the Select Committee is to draw attention to matters, but it cannot decide that we should have a debate. One problem tonight is that we are debating eight proposals in an hour-and-a-half. In former years each one of those proposals would have been a major feature of the domestic British Budget. Is there any Conservative Member who would deny that? Each of the main proposals in the documents before us would have been a major matter for our Exchequer. We are attempting to debate those eight super primary pieces of legislation in the time that is given to a single statutory instrument of secondary legislation.

Mr. Walden: Am I alone in sensing a little disproportion in the hon. Gentleman's remarks? We started with children's shoes, and that has now built up into a major constitutional principle. There is a little gap in between that needs to be filled. To begin with, it is a matter of common sense that most people in this country can afford to buy children's shoes, with or without harmonisation. Harmonisation would bring with it the means to direct extra funds to the small minority of people who need help. To go from there to build a huge and surrealistic issue of constitutional propriety seems to be rather indulgent, romantic and grotesque.

Mr. Spearing: I am sorry that I shall not be able to give way again. The hon. Gentleman has spoilt the debate. He is wrong. I started my speech on that matter because of remarks that had been made and because I happened to have the information with me. This is about our constitution. It is about the power of the House and the power of Conservative Members to decide what taxes should be levied on the people whom they represent. It is about the power of the Executive, and the power of the House to control the Executive. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who I thought was a knowledgeable and intelligent person, does not seem to understand that. He had better read his constitutional history.
The Government have not given the House much information on this matter. It was through parliamentary questions, mainly those of 23 and 24 March, that I had to get my information. I wrote to the Minister on 30 March


on a matter relating to those answers but did not receive an answer until today, after four telephone calls and a personal approach. I am not blaming the Minister for that, although he should take some responsibility. The Minister and the House are not being informed about these important matters, hence the ignorant remarks of the hon. Member for Buckingham.
The tables that I have quoted do not give any information about water and sewerage. Unless sewerage services are to be confined to taking sewage from septic tanks, I calculate that on a £1 billion turnover on sewerage there must be about £150 million VAT, and that on £800 million on water at 4 per cent., about £50 million. Can the Minister tell us what the rate of VAT will be on water?
The Minister asked me about my opposition to the sixth directive in 1976. We opposed it because we knew that the derogations were only temporary. I do not believe that hon. Members knew what they were voting for, any more than the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak ( Mr. Beaumont-Dark) did over the Single European Act, or the hon. Member for Buckingham if he votes against our motion tonight. If he does so, he will be voting power to the Executive in a way that has not happened in this country for several hundred years.
I believe that the Opposition amendment is not only constitutionally right, but right because it will achieve the objectives that the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) outlined. He said, "We do not like this. We want to go ahead steadily." He is in favour of harmonisation, but in a different way from some of us. That judgment should be for the House of Commons and should not be left to a Minister.
The Minister has said, as has the Prime Minister, "We shall not constrain the Chancellor of the Exchequer." That means that they will not constrain any Minister in Brussels, where they may happen to go for package bargaining and where, at some point, they will have to give way. They have not given any pledge on public transport, on instruments for disabled people, on books, even educational books, on newspapers such as The Sun, or on any other written matter. Surely the House cannot put up with a tax on knowledge. If Conservative Members do not vote for our amendment tonight, they will be saying, "We shall leave that judgment in the hands of the Executive", and not retain it in the hands of the House of Commons, where it should be.
I should dearly love to make other points, but I am not sure that I should, because the time constraints are such, and the matter is of such great importance, that other hon. Members should speak. However, I wish to conclude on one major and important point.
At the moment the power of the House is constrained by the treaty of Rome and by section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972. We cannot work outside those self-imposed pieces of written constitution. However, in negotiating this whole question of VAT and excise we can have control of our Executive within those constraints. There is nothing in either the treaty of Rome or section 2 (1) of the European Communities Act 1972 that is inconsistent with the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. That is illustrated by the fact that the Danish Folketing keeps control over its Ministers when they go to Brussels. We are not asking for

that total control over all negotiations. We are asking that the House of Commons shall control and be the back-marker in negotiations on VAT and excise. That is much less than the control exercised by the Folketing over its Ministers.
By their votes tonight, hon. Members will determine whether the control of the House over Ministers in Whitehall is less than that of the Folketing over its Government? If hon. Members vote against the amendment, that is what they will determine.
This year, 1988, is constitutionally important for many reasons. As we will learn later, the foundations were laid in 1688 for this House to have control over the Executive, over its power to tax, to borrow money and to legislate. We have an opportunity tonight, within the terms of the treaty of Rome and of the legislation already passed by the House, to retain some of that power. If hon. Members do not vote for that opportunity they will throw away, not their power, because we are the trustees here, but those of the elected people, not just for now, but for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: If the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) had continued for a few more minutes, we might have got back to 1066, such is his perception of the great affairs unfolding before us in Europe. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that I will not repeat what others have said so far. I am sorry if the unanimity that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) believes to exist in the House is slightly qualified in my case.
I believe that the House is approaching this matter with extraordinary timidity. There was a defensive and negative aura to most of the speeches. I wonder how this debate will be read in our partner countries. They must think that we have problems that are so unique that they are not experienced on the continent of Europe. That is an extraordinary view.
It is odd that the greatest boldness lies in the neutrality of the Government's motion. The amendments are far more restrictive and narrow in their outlook. We need hardly wonder why the Liberal party is defunct after the way in which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed ( Mr. Beith) spoke. Liberals will be turning in their graves at the narrowness of the hon. Gentleman's attitude because the Liberal party always trumpeted that it was more enthusiastic for Europe than the Conservative party or anyone else. That view was certainly not obvious from the hon. Gentleman's speech, but, after all, the Liberal party is dead.
I want to see the creation of a common market and I believe that it should be an area without frontiers. Real benefits will flow for the countries of the European Community when that is achieved. If we are to compete effectively with Japan and the United States, we must organise ourselves on that basis. While I do not want to get into too detailed an argument about the exact importance of the removal of fiscal barriers, that would make a positive contribution to the creation of a better single market.
My approach is to ask why should it not be done, not why should it be done. Why should we think that the proposal is so appalling that we cannot contemplate it? I


concede that the difficulties are obvious enough. I am not saying that we should take the first offer of the Commission straight away, and it is right that we should negotiate from our national position of what we think is right. I am not prepared necessarily to dispute with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing that we should negotiate to try to secure the best system in the belief that currently we have one of the best systems. We should negotiate with a view to getting something on which we can agree.
I hope that we shall be able to address the matter rather more objectively than did the hon. Member for Newham, South. I hope also that we shall be able to do so without political partisanship. If all political parties that are represented in the House believe that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Community, it will help the national interest if we have a collective approach to what our taxation policies are to be and whether we are to have effective harmonisation within Europe. If we are to be continually sniped at in Government by an Opposition who say, "If you do this it will be unpopular with the public and we shall vote against it", Britain's national position will not be assisted in trying to achieve the best possible system of approximation, or harmonisation, of taxes within the Community.
I deplore the fact that there are those who suggest that we should run away from this issue and parties that try to take a narrow, partisan advantage at a time when we must face major issues. The reason why we seem to be running away from the issues, if I deduce it correctly from the debate, is that some of us are scared about further concessions of national sovereignty. In the world into which we are moving, national sovereignty is of shrinking importance. I am as proud of Britain as anyone, but the way in which the world is now organised means that we achieve sovereignty only by binding together with other countries. We took that decision by joining the European Community in the first place. We are not giving away anything that is basically essential by wanting to move towards tax harmonisation.
We shall have less opportunity to determine our own taxes, but the opportunity to do so is not being squeezed out altogether. We are being invited to consider a range of taxes, which will still give us some choice. If we are arguing within the context of two bands rather than a single rate of tax, I am prepared to argue that we should try to secure a lower band which starts at zero. Of course that should be our negotiating position. We would have choice within that band to determine what our tax rates should be.
We should bear in mind the advantages that a powerful, unified market will create. Only in the past few days we have received a report from the Commission which attempts to set out the advantages that we can secure by achieving a real single market. We could hope to improve the Community's total gross domestic product by about 4·5 per cent. and increase employment by 1·75 million over the medium term. These are real and solid advantages which we can obtain for our people if we are prepared to be imaginative enough.
Our second difficulty appears to be over the problem of taxing some items that we have not taxed before. I am slightly surprised that in some instances there is fear on the Government Back Benches about this. I understand that it is part of the Government's approach that we should try

to transfer the burden from direct to indirect taxation. I am glad that we are not restricting the options of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on VAT.
It would seem that there is a need for education. Anyone who listened to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, might well believe that there are people in the rest of Europe who are downtrodden and poor as a result of VAT being imposed in their countries on certain items that are zero rated in Britain. Yet we spend much of our time comparing the British economy with the economies of continental Europe and discussing how much further we must still go to improve our standard of living in certain respects.
I do not believe that the Commission's proposals will lead to fundamental difficulties for the British people if we examine them carefully. We hear the argument about levying VAT on books. I read in The Sunday Times recently that the profit margin on books is considerable and that books could be discounted, if only the distributers and retailers were prepared to allow it to happen, by as much as £3 on a £12·95 volume. If that is correct, even VAT of 4 per cent. seems hardly a matter for anxiety.
The same argument is advanced on newspapers. If VAT of 4 per cent. were levied on newspapers, I do not see how that would inhibit readership levels. In the recent past, some of the proprietors have increased the price of many national dailies by as much as 20 per cent. in one fell swoop. We must put those matters into perspective and not run away from some of the possibilities we might have to face in our negotiations. The British public are capable of discussing such matters reasonably.
We must, of course, defend our national interest and negotiate carefully, but let us at least make clear what is in our national interest. I believe that it is to ensure that the European common market can bring for all our people the economic advances that are no longer within the compass of a single national economy.

Mr. Robert Litherland: The Minister said that he would like to know the strength of feeling among hon. Members in respect of particular subjects. I am concerned about the possible imposition of value added tax on reading matter. That my concern is widely shared is clearly shown by the number of hon. Members who have signed or tabled early-day motions on the subject. My own early-day motion 210 has been signed by 124 hon. Members, and motions tabled by Conservative Members, including that of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), have attracted a similar number of signatories. The expression of concern spreads right across the political spectrum.
The depth of concern is also shown by the number and variety of organisations supporting the contention that value added tax on the printed word is a tax on education. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may argue that there is a case for value added tax in that sector, pointing out that the mere process of producing a book, newspaper or periodical from wood pulp or newsprint adds value to that raw product. He may argue also that ours is the only country which grants exemption for zero rating, and that taxing newspapers, magazines and books is only the same as taxing other forms of entertainment and is therefore acceptable.
However, we are all aware of the instability of the newspaper industry. That industry is renowned for its razor-sharp competition. Recently in Manchester, the Mirror Group announced a jobs cutback, with some 136 journalists being made redundant. That represents another shift away from Manchester and the north-west to London-based printing firms. Any additional tax burden could mean the closure of more titles, especially in the provinces.
The effect on employment of the imposition of VAT on reading matter could be catastrophic. The print unions estimate that some 13,000 jobs would be at risk. The industry would be reduced to even fewer ownerships than at present. Publishing houses—especially the smaller firms—would be at risk. Even more at risk would be the most recent enterprises in that field.
It has been pointed out in all the correspondence I have received on this subject that the most damaging effect of all would be on schoolchildren, students, and those who use libraries. In my maiden speech, I made the point that to a child a book should be an adventure. A book meant for a small child should not be considered as a taxable object. What Government would deny a child access to a book? Value added tax on printed matter of that kind would be viewed as a further cut in education resources.
It would also be seen as an attack on adult education. What is the point of encouraging further education if there is to be a tax that will deter people from making progress in education? To impose a value added tax on knowledge flies in the face of public opinion. What Government would deny access for the under-privileged—especially the educationally under-privileged—to these books? The printed word is a means of communication and should be dear to all who believe in the furtherance of the knowledge that is vital to our progress as a human race. It should be above being used to swell the coffers of the Treasury.
We are talking about harmony, and I hope for that tonight when we call on the Government to listen to the people, and the House, and not to Brussels. They should maintain our right to zero rating on the printed word.

Dr. Marek: First, we should have had a much longer debate—of at least three hours, if not a whole day. The Opposition pressed for that, and it is regrettable that the Government got the feeling of the House wrong and held a debate of only one and a half hours.
Secondly, it is a great pity that the Government have not given a pledge not to impose VAT on books, newspapers and periodicals. No hon. Memer wants such an imposition.
Thirdly, we have heard no good reason from the Government or Conservative Members why anyone should not support the Labour amendment. The arguments for it prevailed, and it would unite the House. It would support the Chancellor in the difficult negotiations that he will have, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You know that this procedure follows that laid down for statutory instruments. Standing Order 14(b) says that if the Speaker is of the view that

the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall, instead of putting the question … interrupt the business, and the debate shall stand adjourned".
As this may be the last time that the House can discuss these matters before the Government start negotiations, I ask you to exercise your right under that Standing Order.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have given careful consideration to the Standing Order and tonight's debate. I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that this is a take-note motion. The legislation is in the early stages of gestation; it is what I would call a preliminary canter over the field. There will be ample opportunities for further debate on this, and I shall put the Question at 11.30 pm

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that ruling. I am grateful, too, to the House for showing support from all sides for the two essential components of the Government's position.
We support the underlying objective of a freer internal market in Europe. To achieve that it is not necessary to move along the proposals for approximation and harmonisation as spelt out by the Commission.
I am sad that the Opposition Front Bench did not take up my challenge to explain why it wants us to accept its amendment, which runs flat contrary to the practice and position of the last Labour Government, let alone all other ones. The amendment goes far further than anyone has proposed in the past. it goes flat contrary to the existing rules, to which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred and which were laid down by a resolution of the House. It states:
no Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council of Ministers to any proposal for European Legislation which has been recommended by the Select Committee on European Legislation … for further consideration by the House before the House have given it that consideration unless—

(a) that Committee has indicated that agreement need not be withheld, or
(b) the Minister concerned decides that for special reasons agreement should not be withheld; and in the latter case the Minister should, at the first opportunity thereafter, explain the reasons for his decision to the House."
Those are tight and binding conditions which have informed and ruled our debates on these matters so far. It would be unfortunate to introduce the rules proposed by the amendment because that would mean that every jot and tittle of European legislation would have to come before the House before it could be formally endorsed in the Council of Ministers by a Minister of this Government. As the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) knows in his heart, having been a Minister in the previous Labour Government, that would make it impractical—

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business), That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 92, Noes 215.

Division No. 300]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Allan, Graham
Boyes, Roland


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Battle, John
Buchan, Norman


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Buckley, George J.


Bermingham, Gerald
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Butcher, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butler, Chris


Allason, Rupert
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Amos, Alan
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Cash, William


Aspinwall, Jack
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkins, Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Atkinson, David
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Churchill, Mr


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baldry. Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Colvin, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Beith, A. J.
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bellingham, Henry
Couchman, James


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cran, James


Benyon, W.
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bevan, David Gilroy
Curry, David


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Boswell, Tim
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Peter
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Devlin, Tim


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowis, John
Dorrell, Stephen


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dunn, Bob


Brazier, Julian
Emery, Sir Peter


Bright, Graham
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fallon, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Favell, Tony


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fearn. Ronald


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Buck, Sir Antony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burt, Alistair
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Macdonald, Calum A.


Clay, Bob
McWilliam, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Mahon. Mrs Alice


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Maxton, John


Crowther, Stan
Meale, Alan


Cryer, Bob
Michael, Alun


Cummings, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Dalyell, Tam
Morgan, Rhodri


Darling, Alistair
Morley, Elliott


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Mullin, Chris


Dewar, Donald
Murphy, Paul


Dixon, Don
Nellist, Dave


Dobson, Frank
O'Neill, Martin


Eastham, Ken
Patchett, Terry


Flynn, Paul
Pike, Peter L.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Prescott, John


Foster, Derek
Primarolo, Dawn


Fyfe, Maria
Redmond, Martin


Galloway, George
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Robertson, George


George, Bruce
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Salmond, Alex


Gordon, Mildred
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Skinner, Dennis


Grocott, Bruce
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hardy, Peter
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Haynes, Frank
Snape, Peter


Henderson, Doug
Spearing, Nigel


Holland, Stuart
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wall, Pat


Illsley, Eric
Walley, Joan


Ingram, Adam
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Lamond, James
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Leadbitter, Ted
Winnick, David


Leighton, Ron



Litherland, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. Allen McKay and


McAllion, John
Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

Forman, Nigel
Neubert, Michael


Forth, Eric
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fox, Sir Marcus
Nicholls, Patrick


Franks, Cecil
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Freeman, Roger
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


French, Douglas
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gardiner, George
Oppenheim, Phillip


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Paice, James


Gill, Christopher
Patnick, Irvine


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Pawsey, James


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gow, Ian
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Gregory, Conal
Porter, David (Waveney)


Grist, Ian
Raffan, Keith


Grylls, Michael
Redwood, John


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Renton, Tim


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Rhodes James, Robert


Harris, David
Riddick, Graham


Haselhurst, Alan
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hawkins, Christopher
Rowe, Andrew


Hayes, Jerry
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hayward, Robert
Ryder, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hind, Kenneth
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Holt, Richard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howard, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sims, Roger


Irvine, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jack, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Janman, Tim
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Squire, Robin


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Stanley, Rt Hon John


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stern, Michael


Kirkhope, Timothy
Stevens, Lewis


Knapman, Roger
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sumberg, David


Knowles, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Knox, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lawrence, Ivan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thorne, Neil


Lightbown, David
Thurnham, Peter


Lilley, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Tredinnick, David


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lord, Michael
Viggers, Peter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Waddington, Rt Hon David


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Waldegrave, Hon William


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Walden, George


Malins, Humfrey
Wallace, James


Mans, Keith
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Warren, Kenneth


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Whitney, Ray


Mellor, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Miller, Hal
Wilshire, David


Mills, Iain
Wolfson, Mark


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wood, Timothy


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Woodcock, Mike


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)



Moss, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Nelson, Anthony
Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8199/87 on indirect tax rates and structures,


8200/87 on value added tax rates, 8201/87 on the removal of fiscal frontiers, 8202/87 on a value added tax clearing mechanism frorintra-Community sales, 8203/87 + COR 1 on convergence of rates of value added tax and excise duties, 8204/87 and 8205/87 on taxes on cigarettes and other manufactured tobacco, 8206/87 on excise duty on mineral oils and 8207/87 + COR 1 on excise duty on alcohol.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for taking this point of order, as I am for your ruling at the end of the debate. Although, as you indicated, there may be further debates on the legislation, the Government have discharged their responsibility to the House and I am aware of no procedure that guarantees further debates before decisions are made in Brussels. It is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government, or any other hon. Member may raise such a debate, but that cannot be guaranteed.
Secondly, the seven directives that we have discussed tonight may, if followed up, have to come back to the House for legislation for the United Kingdom. If that happens, the terms of the decision in Brussels will have to be complied with by the House, for if a decision by the House was other than the decision by Brussels, the House would be in breach of the treaty.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The very convoluted point of order put by the hon. Gentleman, who I know is an expert on European matters, has been noted.

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN MARRIAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.)

Orders of the Day — HOUSING

That the draft Housing Defects (Reinstatement Grant) (Amendment of Conditions for Assistance) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 22nd March, be approved—[Mr. Ryder.]

Question agreed to.

A249 Road (Sheerness)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ryder]

Mr. Roger Moate: The story of the A249 road to Sheerness is a story that should gladden the hearts of our competitors abroad and that should make the British people weep.
In an age when we pride ourselves on the claim that we have got Britain moving, we cannot get a good road built to one of our main deep water ports, to a major industrial growth area, to a large resident population in the prosperous south-east of England. I welcome this chance to tell the House of our problems in securing a first-class road link from the M2 and M20 motorways to the port of Sheerness, the town of Sheerness and the Isle of Sheppey. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport will be visiting us to see for himself on 20 May. I hope that he will then understand our frustration and that after his visit he will inject into his Department a political determination to plan and to build soon a continuous and good road link to Sheerness.
Let me remind my hon. Friend of what I am sure he knows but that many, apparently, do not. The Isle of Sheppey is a real island. It is linked to the Kent mainland by one bridge—a lifting bridge that was opened in 1960. It is now heavily overloaded and is undergoing major repairs. The bridge has been raised 60,000 times since it was built to allow yachts and commercial shipping to use the river Swale.
Sheppey has a population of 33,000, rising to probably over 80,000 in the summer. It is a major and expanding industrial area, about which I shall say more in a moment. It has an important deep water port, about which I shall also say more in a moment. My hon. Friend will find, as he leaves the motorway, a winding, single carriageway road for several miles, passing through the villages of Bobbing and Iwade. He will see our lifting bridge. He will also see another single carriageway road over the Sheppey marshes linking up with a stretch of new bypass that leads almost, but not quite—we never quite make it to the port—to Sheerness and to the docks.
The road is narrow and winding, passing is almost impossible. Traffic is usually heavy. Certainly at peak hours, with repairs and perhaps the bridge lifted, delays and tailbacks can be great and the frustration even greater. However, I can almost guarantee that, when my hon. Friend the Minister comes, there will be no jams, no delays and no bridge up and that he will sail through without delay. That is life. However, the position is generally as I have described it.
It is not my purpose to talk about our problems with road repairs, but it would be wrong not to put on record the frustration of the Sheppey community and others about the coincidence, despite all the assurances we received beforehand, of major repair works on the bridge, on the A249, on the M2 and on the M20 simultaneously. It makes those of us who live in Kent feel as though we are totally beleaguered.
I acknowledge readily that there are some road plans in the pipeline, but I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that when nothing comes out of the end of the pipeline people grow somewhat cynical and frustrated. Let

me take, for example, the (wade bypass. I have a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport dated 3 November 1982. It reads:
We hope to be in a position to consult the public on the route during the summer of 1983. The normal statutory processes will then follow, which would allow the work to start in 1986.
We have not even got into a planning inquiry yet and the prospects of that starting seem to diminish all the time. Can my hon. Friend tell me what has gone wrong?
Let me remind my hon. Friend of some offerings from his Department regarding improving the road north of the bridge. On 28 July 1986, two years ago, he told me that that was a candidate for inclusion in the road programme. In regard to the same stretch of road, on 23 April 1987 he said that the Department was bearing the question in mind in the current review. Five days later, on 28 April, he told me that it had not been possible to add a scheme. He then held out the hope that there might be some additional consideration later in the year, but that came to nothing. These are modest extracts from the massive file.
We have had meetings with Ministers, petitions to Downing street, endless correspondence and so on. The Sheppey Industries Association, VOICE, the employers' organisation for Swale, and the borough council have all been tireless in pressing the case, let it be said, not just For a local road for local interests which any hon. Member would always espouse, but for a national route of fundamental importance to the road network, to industrial output and also to the ordinary motorist and to the residents of the locality.
It is not my purpose to speak at length about the Kingsferry bridge because it is too big a subject to deal with in a short Adjournment debate. The Government know that Swale borough council recently commissioned Mott, Hay & Anderson, eminent consulting engineers, to undertake a feasibility study into a new Swale crossing. We should congratulate the council on its initiative and the engineers on their report.
The estimated cost of a single carriageway bridge would be £18 million. The cheapest tunnel would be £24 million. This is a nettle which the Government will have to grasp before long. The consultants said that a second crossing would probably be justified in about 10 years' time. If we start planning now, it will be 10 years plus before we get a second crossing. At the very least we should be taking serious initial steps to put the new crossing into the programme. In the meantime, there are various traffic management suggestions which could improve traffic flows. These should be considered urgently by the Department.
May I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the traffic figures which show that there is complete justification for dualling the road north of the bridge? At the bridge itself last October the count was 20,200 vehicles a day. This flows on to the narrow single carriageway for which, I understand, the design flow now would be little more than 10,000 vehicles a day. We should compare that with, say, the A20 at Harrietsham where there are 28,000 vehicles a day. Admittedly that is more, but it is getting a three-lane motorway bypass. The A226 at Gravesend, with only 15,000 vehicles a day, is getting its bypass now. At Thanet way, where again the figures are less than for Sheppey way, miraculously dualling has leapt into the programme and work has been started. Perhaps that is because it is a county programme. Somehow the county


seems to be able to get on with the job more quickly than the Department does when trunk roads are involved. It is also noteworthy that the number of heavy goods vehicles on Sheppey way is 13 per cent., which is considerably higher than the national average. There again the growth forecast for traffic is also higher than the national average.
With regard to growth, even in recent months there have been announcements of new industrial investment at Ridham dock and on the island. With all the industrial land that is available for development and the strategically important location of Sheppey, it is obvious that traffic growth will continue apace. Sheppey is already an important industrial area. For example, we have Sheerness Steel, one of our national success stories. It is a major steel industry which produces 5 per cent. of the total national steel production. Despite the company's commitment to rail traffic, rail sidings and its wagon fleet, it still uses 240 vehicles in its works. It is a great success story for the United Kingdom, but it faces tremendous road problems. There are glass, electrical, pharmaceutical and other steel industries and a range of other significant employers. There is major Canadian, Japanese, German and American investment. Sheppey is truly an international island.
However, the greatest success story is that of the port of Sheerness which, from the darkest days following the closure of the naval dockyard, has transformed itself into one of the most thrusting and competitive ports in the United Kingdom. It is the largest fruit port and the largest car terminal for imported vehicles in the United Kingdom. It is one of the largest and the fastest expanding port in forest products, such as paper, pulp and timber.
The ferry business there has grown dramatically and continues to expand at a rapid rate. Last year, the Olau Line, with its three superb ferries, carried 570,000 passengers, 104,000 passenger cars, 4,000 coaches, 60,000 freight units and 35,000 trade cars, but that capacity will be enormously increased when the two new ferries are delivered soon. The port generates almost 2,000 jobs. Sheerness is now, excluding oil and bulk carriers, the fifth largest port in the United Kingdom, yet it does not have a decent link road from the motorway.
The strategic importance of Sheerness is even greater than I have indicated. It is the only deep-sea port in Kent, and indeed in the south-east, as far as Southampton, that can service the international shipping trade in respect of the Channel tunnel. With 40 ft of deep water at low tide, Sheerness has some of the deepest water in the United Kingdom and is, apart from the wretched road link, the ideal deep-water port to service the Channel.
If we are to attract major shipping lines to the United Kingdom and then tranship, via rail or road, through to Europe, Sheerness is the ideal location. If it happens the other way round, Britain will lose that trade and the jobs and economic spin-off from it. It is evident that a first-class road system linking Sheerness to the motorways is an integral part of any sensible strategy for the south-east, so why have we been left behind? Why have we not had the same priority as other places? More important, will the Minister use his authority to ensure that we now receive priority?
Let me spell out briefly what is being sought and what could be achieved by the Minister putting his weight

behind the scheme. First, the general objective is to establish that there needs to be a dual carriageway from the M20 to Sheerness, certainly as far as the new Queenborough bypass on the island. Secondly, the proposed dualling of the section from the M2 to the A2 is in the programme. May we have construction urgently and without any slippage?
Thirdly, the Iwade bypass from Key street on the A2 to Sheppey bridge is in the programme. I welcome the proposed dual carriageway and readily accept that it will be a superb road of immense benefit, but we are becoming alarmed at possible slippage. It has not yet even gone to public inquiry. Will the Minister stress to his officials that it is a priority route and that no delay can be tolerated?
Fourthly, north of the bridge, from the bridge to the Queenborough bypass, we need a dual carriageway, either as a road improvement via Cowstead corner or, preferably, a new fairly short stretch of dual carriageway as a direct link from the bridge to the Queenborough bypass. That is not a major road scheme in terms of distance, cost, land acquisition or engineering. When my hon. Friend sees that miserably inadequate stretch of road, stuck between the proposed end of the new dual carriageway to the south and the new Queenborough bypass to the north, he will understand our frustration. If he agrees, will he please put it into an early construction schedule and not into a distant programme for the 21st century?
Fifth is the scheme for the entrance to the Sheerness docks. I believe that it is ready to go. May we please get construction started? Sixthly, I return to the really difficult problem—the Kingsferry bridge. I do not think that there is an immediate, satisfactory solution, but the Government should authorise investigation into the best long-term solution—it has to be a tunnel or a second bridge—while backing interim management schemes to improve traffic flows over the bridge.
Of one thing I am absolutely sure: with dual carriageways either side of the bridge, there will be major improvements in traffic flow. We must not hold up the dualling of the road on the ground that the bridge is a bottleneck. That is a recipe for eternal inaction.
Most of what I am asking for is already committed. Most of it is already in the programme. Therefore, what we need is not money but speed, no slippage, no further delays, a sense of purpose and action. The other improvements that we seek, especially those north of the bridge, are not costly in road spending terms. All it needs is a simple political commitment to the concept of a first-class road to Sheerness soon, and a ministerial boot up backsides if there is any avoidable delay.
If we really are trying to build a modern Britain, will my hon. Friend the Minister please do his bit to ensure that we have a modern road to this vital part of the United Kingdom?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) for raising the important matter of the A249 to Sheerness. He has for many years pressed successive Ministers through correspondence, meetings and visits to the area. He has also had a good deal of success. His aim is to improve the A249, which is the only access from the mainland to the


Isle of Sheppey and its expanding port of Sheerness. His ardent campaign for improvements has been ably supported by the Sheppey Industries Association, VOICE—Voice of Industrial Company Employers in Swale is, I think, the plain English—and local authorities. I pay tribute to his energy and to his concern for his constituency.
By a mixture of oratory and rough language my hon. Friend has perhaps given me a foretaste of what I shall experience when I visit the area. I am sorry that I was not able to go on the previously appointed day, and when I do go I do not intend to make any earth-shattering announcement. We shall, however, reconsider the need for improvements to the A249 between Kingsferry bridge and the Queenborough bypass in the next review of the trunk road programme. To assist us in our consideration, a scheme identification study on the relevant section of the A249 is to be carried out by Kent county council. We shall arrange for the study to cover the possibility of providing extra capacity at the bridge, although it is too early, as my hon. Friend said, to say whether that can be justified or, to put it more moderately, when it can be justified.
The trunk road programme remains one of the Government's priorities. We are determined to do as much as possible to continue to develop the trunk road network for present and future traffic needs. The major schemes on the A249 that are already programmed are good examples of schemes that meet our policy of improving roads to ports and getting traffic out of villages. Further improvements to the A249 will be considered in the next review. I look forward to my planned visit to the A249 on 20 May, when I shall meet my hon. Friend and the Sheppey business community.
My hon. Friend referred to the port of Sheerness. The Government fully accept its importance to the local area and to the nation, and the need to improve access to it. If I have time, I shall say more about that. Sheerness, which is owned and operated by the Medway Port Authority, is, as my hon. Friend said, the fifth largest continental car ferry port after Dover, Portsmouth, Harwich and Ramsgate. It handles more than 1·5 million tonnes of cargo each year. Half of that is accounted for by 50,000 freight vehicles on the Olau Line service to Flushing. There are also 700,000 passengers and 100,000 cars. The port also handles car import operations and other deep-sea trade. Confidence in the future success of the port is shown by the opening by the Medway Port Authority of a £9 million car terminal in February 1987. The Olau Line has also announced the building of two new jumbo ferries, an investment of £100 million. They will enter service on the Sheerness-Flushing route in 1989 and 1990. To meet that demand, MPA plans to start new berth construction later this year.
My hon. Friend talked at length about the A249. It is clearly the vital link both to the port and to the industrial and commercial interests of Sheppey. It is a lifeline to those who live and work there. The A249 extends for about 20 miles north-eastwards from Maidstone to Sheerness, and has major junctions with the M20, M2 and A2. Before 1979, the A249 was the responsibility of Kent county council. Because of the industrial development on Sheppey and expansion of the port of Sheerness, it was decided to transfer responsibility for the section between the M2 and Sheerness dock to the Secretary of State for Transport. A short section northwards from the M2 to Chestnut street was trunked in July 1979, and the

remainder—about 10 miles—to the docks in October 1983. South of the M2, the A249 is the responsibility of Kent county council.
Between the M2 and Sheerness the road is a single carriageway of varying standards of alignment and visibility. The route undoubtedly has a very poor accident record. In the three years from 1984 to 1986 there have been 145 injury accidents—seven involving fatalities, 44 serious injuries and 94 slight injury. For every injury accident, there are many damage-only ones.
The present traffic on the M2 to Kingsferry bridge section is in the range of 13,000 to 16,500 vehicles a day, taking a I6-hour day. As my hon. Friend said, to overcome those problems we have two major schemes under preparation comprehensively to improve the A249 to dual two-lane carriageway standards from the M2 to Kingsferry bridge. The latter is a combined road and rail crossing, and the only crossing to the Isle of Sheppey.
I realise that, welcome though those schemes are to my hon. Friend and his supporters, they do not satisfy their demands to replace the Kingsferry bridge and to upgrade the road northwards to Sheerness docks. I hope to deal first with the programmed schemes and come to the suggestions for further improvements.
The Iwade bypass was added to the programme in February 1982. What started off as a scheme for a small local bypass of the village of Iwade has been extended to cover the four miles between the A2 at Key street and Kingsferry bridge. The scheme will provide substantial relief to the village of Iwade and the neighbouring communities of Bobbing and Howt Green, as well as greatly improving the road link to Sheerness docks. Public consultation was held in December 1985 and a preferred route, which runs to the east of the present A249, was announced in December 1986.
Last autumn we had hoped that by now we should be able to publish the necessary statutory orders for our preferred scheme under the Highways Act. For reasons over which we had no direct control, the programme for the Iwade bypass has slipped. Kent county council has recently brought forward, in its transport policies programme, proposals for a Sittingbourne link to connect directly with our scheme. That means that a new interchange will be needed. We accept that it is sensible to take account of the Sittingbourne link in our planning for the Iwade bypass scheme, but it will require us to take a fresh look at the traffic and economics for the combined proposals. In particular, it could have a consequential effect on our present proposals for the A249-A2 junction at Key street. All that will inevitably delay the publication of the draft orders for the Iwade scheme. We now hope that the draft orders for Iwade will be published early next year and that the proposals for the scheme and those for the Sittingbourne link will be dealt with at inquiries at about the same time, possibly later in 1989. Experience suggests that it is unlikely that an inquiry can be avoided.
I realise that any delay is disappointing. My hon. Friend talked about assurances. It is my policy to try to avoid giving assurances. I spend most of my time picking up ones given by Hore-Belisha and various Ministers at the Department of Transport between him and me. My hon. Friend also asked whether I would grasp the nettle. I have a special pair of gloves because there are so many nettles in road planning that it would become painful otherwise.
Our experience shows that a scheme should be taken forward only after careful preparation. We want to get the design right and to avoid unnecessary delays later. The scheme, to improve the A249 to dual carriageway standards between its junctions with the A2 at Key street and the M2 at Stockbury, was added to the programme in the 1985 review. Public consultation on two route options was held in February 1987. We expect to announce the preferred route decision this summer. We hope thereafter to be able to proceed fairly quickly with the scheme, but timing will depend on the necessary statutory procedures.
We recognise the importance of the A249, but it was not possible within the resources available and against competing pressures of other schemes to add a scheme to the programme at last year's review, either for a second crossing of the Swale or an improvement north of the Kingsferry bridge. We have said many times that the cost of a second crossing would be considerable and hard to justify. That is still the case.
The Department's view on a replacement bridge received some support from the results of a study commissioned by Swale district council, which concluded that although the present bridge and its operation did cause delays, any major improvement would be difficult to justify economically. However, I hope that the announcement that we are asking Kent county council to see what can be done will be of some comfort.
As my hon. Friend knows, the Kingsferry bridge is jointly owned by British Rail and the Department. British Rail operates it and is responsible for maintenance. In June 1985 the Department was informed of possible chloride problems. Testing by BR confirmed the presence of chloride contamination in the deck of the bridge. Extensive remedial works were started in early December last year. Early in the contract it became clear that contamination was much worse than feared and required a greater degree of remedial work.
Because of the importance of communication with

Sheppey, we considered carefully with BR the requirements to be imposed on the contractor to keep delays to a minimum. We have been able, by night-time working, to keep two lanes of traffic open between 6 am and 8 pm. Traffic flow through the works has inevitably been slowed. There have been delays.
BR says that the remedial work is nearing completion and is expected to be finished by the end of June. My hon. Friend will wish to know that the necessary rewaterproofing and resurfacing works cannot be carried out without extending the existing night-time single lane operations to include some daytime lane closures. A press notice will be issued. We intend to allow single lane operation from 8 pm to noon on both Fridays and Saturdays. Every effort will be made to reduce this and to keep traffic disruption to a minimum.
Problems with planning and executing the Kingsferry bridge repairs have resulted in a backlog of essential work and postponed schemes. While the Department is anxious to avoid more than one set of roadworks at a time on the A249, works cannot be postponed indefinitely. It is planned to avoid roadworks on the A249 during the summer school holiday period.
I say to my hon. Friend that if every hon. Member pushed as hard as he did, my job would be more difficult than it is. When I visit on 20 May, I expect to come with my ears and my eyes, rather than with my mouth. I look forward to seeing for myself and hearing from my hon. Friend and those associated with him in working to give the best road communication with the Isle of Sheppey.
When I heard that my hon. Friend had secured this important debate, I hoped that it was to celebrate what I call our joint campaign to build the Rochester way relief road. One of the first things that I remember when I came to the House was my hon. Friend asking for that road to be completed. I apologise for the fact that we managed to open that road before solving the problems of the A249 to Sheerness.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.